The National Academies Press: Use of Automated Machine Guidance Within The Transportation Industry (2018)

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25084 SHARE

   
Use of Automated Machine Guidance within the Transportation

Industry (2018)
DETAILS
538 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-47485-6 | DOI 10.17226/25084
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK David J. White, Charles T. Jahren, Pavana Vennapusa, Caroline Westort, Ahmad
Alhasan, Daniel K. Miller, Yelda Turkan, Fangyu Guo, John Hannon, Adam Dubree,
and Tulio Sulbaran; National Cooperative Highway Research Program;
Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
FIND RELATED TITLES Medicine
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018. Use of

Automated Machine Guidance within the Transportation Industry. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25084.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Use of Automated Machine Guidance within the Transportation Industry
NCHRP
Web-Only Document 250:
Use of Automated Machine

Guidance within the Transportation Industry
David White, Charles Jahren, Pavana Vennapusa, Caroline Westort,
Ahmad Alhasan, Yelda Turkan, and Fangyu Guo
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
John Hannon and Adam Dubree

The University of Southern Mississippi
Hattiesburg, Mississippi
Tulio Sulbaran
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas
Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 10-77
Submitted August 2017
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation
with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP),
which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine.
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or
persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit
purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular
product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit
uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material,
request permission from CRP.
DISCLAIMER
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They
are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine;
or the program sponsors.
The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been
edited by TRB.
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that
is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all
of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals
interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

NCHRP Project 10-77
CONTENTS
CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................................... xiii
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. xi
AMG Workflow Processes ............................................................................................................. xi
AMG Information Review .............................................................................................................. xi
Survey Outcomes ........................................................................................................................... xii
Legal Barriers................................................................................................................................. xii
AMG Training Opportunities ....................................................................................................... xiii
Best Practices and Challenges for Design Model Development ................................................... xiii
Impact of AMG on Earthwork Quantities..................................................................................... xiii
Accuracy of AMG Process ........................................................................................................... xiii
AMG Guide Specification ............................................................................................................ xiv
The Future of AMG ...................................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement ........................................................................................................................... 1
Research Objectives and Scope ....................................................................................................... 1
Research Approach .......................................................................................................................... 2
Report Organization ......................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2: Basic AMG Workflow Processes .......................................................................................... 6
Surveying Workflow........................................................................................................................ 6
Select Reference System ..................................................................................................... 6
Establish Project Control-Monumentation and Metadata ................................................... 7
Develop Work Plan to Locate Terrain and Features ........................................................... 7
Execute Work Plan ............................................................................................................. 7
Fuse Data ............................................................................................................................ 7
Check Quality ..................................................................................................................... 7
Design Process ................................................................................................................................. 8
Design Office Conceptualization........................................................................................ 9
Surveying ............................................................................................................................ 9
Designers Develop Drawings or Models ............................................................................ 9
Project Letting and Award .................................................................................................. 9
Contractor Data Preparation............................................................................................................ 10
Decisions about Using AMG ............................................................................................ 10
Data Preparation for 3D Conversion................................................................................. 11
Conversion to Hardware Application Format as Necessary ............................................. 11
Model Quality Control ...................................................................................................... 11
Minor Additional Data Preparation by Field Personnel as Necessary .............................. 11
Verify Existing Control Points ......................................................................................... 12
Synchronize Field Control and Design Control ................................................................ 12
Customize Model for Operator Use .................................................................................. 13
Implement Model into AMG-Ready Equipment .............................................................. 14
iv

NCHRP Project 10-77
Overall AMG Processes ................................................................................................................. 14

Execute AMG Work Plan ................................................................................................. 14
Quality Control ................................................................................................................. 14
CHAPTER 3: AMG Information and Lexicon ........................................................................................... 17
AMG Project Bibliography Tool ................................................................................................... 17
Information and Literature Sources ............................................................................................... 17
Search Engines .................................................................................................................. 17
Conferences and Workshops............................................................................................. 18
AMG Project Bibliography Organization and Topics ................................................................... 18
Dissemination ................................................................................................................................ 20
AMG Lexicon ................................................................................................................................ 20
CHAPTER 4: Key Stakeholder Survey Results ......................................................................................... 24
Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 24
Survey Planning and Question Development ................................................................... 24
Monitoring ........................................................................................................................ 25
Assessment........................................................................................................................ 26
Respondent Demographics ............................................................................................................ 26
Contractors ........................................................................................................................ 26
Responding Transportation Agencies ............................................................................... 27
Software and Hardware Vendors ...................................................................................... 27
Heavy Equipment Vendors ............................................................................................... 28
Training and Educational Organizations .......................................................................... 28
Barriers to AMG Adoption ............................................................................................................ 28
Contractor Perspective ...................................................................................................... 28
Agency Perspective........................................................................................................... 29
DTM Creation, Use, and Sharing .................................................................................................. 29
Contractor Perspective ...................................................................................................... 29
Agency Designer Perspective ........................................................................................... 30
Agency Planner and Surveyor Perspective ....................................................................... 30
Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective .......................................... 30
AMG Quality Control and Accuracy ............................................................................................. 31
Topographical Data and Collection .................................................................................. 31
Digital Terrain Modeling .................................................................................................. 32
AMG Accuracy ................................................................................................................. 32
QA/QC .............................................................................................................................. 33
EED and Data Formats .................................................................................................................. 34
AMG Legal Aspects ...................................................................................................................... 35
AMG Education and Training ....................................................................................................... 36
Perceived Risks of AMG ............................................................................................................... 37
Perceived Benefits of AMG ........................................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER 5: Legal Aspects of AMG Data ............................................................................................... 41
Owner/Agency Reluctance to Share EED with Contractors .......................................................... 41
Warranty of Design ........................................................................................................................ 41
Copyrights...................................................................................................................................... 45
Definition of Functional Roles....................................................................................................... 45
Approval and Certification of Design Intent .................................................................... 46
Definition of Design, Engineering, and Surveying ........................................................... 47
Responsible Charge .......................................................................................................... 50
Survey Results ............................................................................................................................... 51
Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective .......................................... 53

NCHRP Project 10-77
Agency Designer Perspective ........................................................................................... 54

Legal Research ............................................................................................................................... 55
Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 55
Legal Survey ..................................................................................................................... 55
Text String Searches ......................................................................................................... 55
Sample String: Liability Waiver + Construction + Contracts + Public Works +
Enforceability.................................................................................................................... 56
TRB Legal Committees .................................................................................................... 56
Summary of Legal Aspects of AMG Data ..................................................................................... 56
CHAPTER 6: AMG Education and Training ............................................................................................. 58
The Importance of Education and Training for AMG ................................................................... 58
AMG Education and Training Delivery Methods.......................................................................... 59
Sources of Education and Training for AMG ................................................................................ 60
Surveying and Positioning Hardware ............................................................................... 60
Modeling Software ........................................................................................................... 61
AMG in Educational Institutions ...................................................................................... 64
Educational and Training Opportunities Summary ....................................................................... 65
CHAPTER 7: Best Practices for AMG Design Model Development ......................................................... 67
The Importance of 3D Modeling ................................................................................................... 67
Initial Planning for Modeling ........................................................................................................ 67
Philosophy of Building a BIM-Type 3D Model ............................................................... 67
Overall Spatial Control ..................................................................................................... 68
Data Transfer (Inputs and Outputs) .................................................................................. 69
Selection of Technology for Spatial Data Collection for Existing Terrain and Features . 70
Consider Tradeoffs ........................................................................................................... 71
General Procedure for Developing Models ................................................................................... 72
Reference CAD Standards ................................................................................................ 73
Add Horizontal and Vertical Alignments ......................................................................... 73
Create Typical Sections from Templates .......................................................................... 73
Generate Design Surface Model ....................................................................................... 74
Check Design Surface ....................................................................................................... 74
Merge Design Surface and Preconstruction Surface......................................................... 74
Conduct Necessary Manual Design in Complicated Areas .............................................. 74
Perform Constructability Review ..................................................................................... 74
Generate Final Files .......................................................................................................... 75
3D Model Special Considerations ................................................................................................. 75
Contractor Use of 3D Modeling .................................................................................................... 76
Summary of Data Transfer Methods .............................................................................................. 78
Design Model Development Best Practices Summary................................................................... 79
Areas for Further Study.................................................................................................................. 79
CHAPTER 8: Impact of AMG on Earthwork Quantities ........................................................................... 81
Background .................................................................................................................................... 81
Survey Responses and Previous Case Studies ............................................................................... 81
Survey Responses on the Use of DTMs for Estimation.................................................... 81
Impact of AMG on Productivity Gain and Cost Savings.................................................. 82
Cost Savings Model .......................................................................................................... 85
Earthwork Quantity Computation and Measurement .................................................................... 87
Accuracy of DTMs ........................................................................................................... 87
Computation of Earthwork Quantities .............................................................................. 92
Model Enhancement for Construction Purposes............................................................... 93
vi

NCHRP Project 10-77
Model Conversion to QA/QC Format............................................................................... 93

Impact on Earthworks Summary .................................................................................................... 93
CHAPTER 9: Accuracy of AMG Processes ............................................................................................... 95
Accuracy Review – AMG Workshop ............................................................................................ 95
Variables That Influence the Accuracy of AMG Processes .......................................................... 96
Position Measurement Technologies ................................................................................ 96
Construction Process and Human Errors ........................................................................ 100
AMG Control for Single Phase versus Multiple Phases of Project ................................ 101
Quantitative Evaluation of Accuracy ........................................................................................... 101
Statistical Data Analyses Approach ................................................................................ 101
Experimental Test Results .............................................................................................. 102
Accuracy of AMG Summary ....................................................................................................... 107
CHAPTER 10: AMG Implementation and Guidelines Specifications ..................................................... 109
AMG Specification Assessment .................................................................................................. 110
AMG Guide Specification Tool ................................................................................................... 112
Checklist of QC/QA Factors ........................................................................................................ 122
Initial Data Collection to Develop DTMs ....................................................................... 122
Model Development for Design Purposes ...................................................................... 122
Model Enhancement for Construction Purposes............................................................. 123
Manipulation of AMG Files for Construction Operations.............................................. 123
Manipulation of AMG Files for QA/QC ........................................................................ 123
CHAPTER 11: Future of AMG in Infrastrucutre Construction ................................................................ 125
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 125
Emerging AMG Technologies ..................................................................................................... 125
The Future AMG Professional ..................................................................................................... 134
Data, Standardization, and Interoperability ................................................................................. 135
AMG in the Future: Concept for Land Drones ............................................................................ 136
AMG Contribution to Sustainability ............................................................................................ 138
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 138
CHAPTER 12: Summary and Conclusions............................................................................................... 140
AMG Workshop .......................................................................................................................... 140
AMG Workflow Processes .......................................................................................................... 141
Information Review ..................................................................................................................... 141
Survey Outcomes ......................................................................................................................... 141
Legal Barriers............................................................................................................................... 142
AMG Training Opportunities ...................................................................................................... 143
Development of Design Models – Best Practices......................................................................... 143
Impact of AMG on Earthwork Quantities.................................................................................... 144
Accuracy of AMG Process .......................................................................................................... 144
Guide Specifications and Implmentation ..................................................................................... 145
Future of AMG ............................................................................................................................ 146
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 147
ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, INITIALISMS, AND SYMBOLS.................................................. 151
APPENDIX A: AMG Workshop Report
APPENDIX B: Annotated Bibliography
vii

NCHRP Project 10-77
APPENDIX C: AMG Specifications in the United States
APPENDIX D: Detailed Survey Outcomes
viii

NCHRP Project 10-77
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. AMG Applications involving (a) Three-Dimensional (3D) Design and (b) Application of
AMG in Earthwork Grading (images curtesy of Iowa DOT and Caterpillar) ................................. 1
Figure 2-1. Elements of the AMG Workflow Processes............................................................................... 6
Figure 2-2. Survey Preparation Workflow Processes ................................................................................... 8
Figure 2-3. Design Workflow Processes..................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2-4. Contractor Data Preparation Workflow Processes ................................................................... 13
Figure 2-5(a). Overall AMG Workflow Processes ..................................................................................... 15
Figure 2-5(b). Contractor Documentation Subset of Overall AMG Workflow Processes ......................... 16
Figure 4-1. Transportation Agency Responses by U.S. State ..................................................................... 27
Figure 4-2. File Types of EED Exchanged Across AMG Functions .......................................................... 35
Figure 5-1. Statements from Delaware DOT (DelDOT)’s “Release for Delivery of Documents in
Electronic Form to a Contractor” ................................................................................................... 43
Figure 5-2. Statements from California DOT (Caltrans) states, in a non-standard special provision for
District 11. ..................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 5-3. Statements from Iowa DOT, in “Developmental Specifications for Global Positioning System
Machine Control Grading” ............................................................................................................ 44
Figure 5-4. Statements from the Indiana DOT (INDOT) Draft Specification for allowing Stakeless
Excavation on a Highway Contract, Section 105.08. .................................................................... 44
Figure 5-5. Statement from California DOT (Caltrans) states, in a non-standard special provision for
District 11. ..................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 5-6. Statements from the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, 21
NCAC 56.1103, Standard Certification Requirements. ................................................................. 46
Figure 5-7. Statements from the Florida Board of Professional Engineers, 61G15-23.003 Procedures for
Signing and Sealing Electronically Transmitted Plans, Specifications, Reports or Other
Documents. .................................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 5-8. Statements from the Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, State of
California, Clarification Regarding the use of Global Positioning System Equipment by
Unlicensed Individuals, November 21, 2006. ................................................................................ 48
Figure 5-9. Comments from a surveying professional in a trade publication (see Harry, 2007) ................ 49
Figure 5-10. Professional engineer reports in a trade publication concerns about North Carolina’s
interpretation regarding DTM detailing (see Harry, 2007) ............................................................ 50
Figure 5-11. Statements from surveying profession (see Joseph, 2007)..................................................... 50
Figure 5-12. Comments from Harry (2007) considering issues of accountability and liability.................. 50
Figure 5-13. Comments from professional surveyor has expressed this phenomenon in a trade publication
(see Harry, 2007) ........................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 7-1. 2D vs. 3D Data Transfer .......................................................................................................... 70
Figure 7-2. Flowchart for 3D Model Development Procedure ................................................................... 72
Figure 7-3. File Types of EED Exchanged Across AMG Functions .......................................................... 78
Figure 8-1. Survey Responses by Contractors on the Use of DTMs .......................................................... 82
Figure 8-2. Survey Responses by Contractors and Vendors and Productivity Gain and Potential Cost
Savings using AMG, and Data obtained from Field Case Studies ................................................ 83
Figure 8-3. Estimated Percent Cost Savings on a Subbase Fine Grading Project using AMG................... 87
Figure 8-4. Elevation Data points for Developing DTM over a 540 m2 Area: (a) 78 Data Points; (b) 38
Data Points; and (c) 11 Data Points ............................................................................................... 89
Figure 8-5. Picture of the Area with Elevation Data................................................................................... 89
Figure 8-6. DTMs of a 540m2 Area using 78 Elevation Data Points using Different Interpolation
Methods: (a) Inverse Distance to a Power; (b) Kriging; (c) Local Polynomial; (d) Minimum
Curvature; (e) Nearest Neighbor; (f) Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) ................................ 90
ix

NCHRP Project 10-77
Figure 9-1. Conceptual Illustration of Comparison between Pavement Layer Thickness with Uniform
Support Conditions and Non-Uniform Support Conditions Using AMG.................................... 101
Figure 9-2. CS74 roller setup with padfoot shell kit and RTK-GPS on Project 1 with sloping uneven
ground conditions a grading project ............................................................................................ 103
Figure 9-3. CS563E smooth drum roller setup with RTK-GPS on Project 2 with relatively flat grade over
gravel road ................................................................................................................................... 103
Figure 9-4. CS74 smooth drum roller setup with SBAS-GPS on Project 3 with sloping gravel road ...... 104
Figure 9-5. CS56 smooth drum roller setup with RTK-GPS on Project 2 with relatively flat grade over
gravel road ................................................................................................................................... 105
Figure 11-1 Example 3D Design Software used to Generate 2D Cross Sections (courtesy Brian Smith,
Iowa DOT) ................................................................................................................................... 125
Figure 11-2 Example of Color-Coded Plans (a) Plan View (b) Alignment with Geotechnical Information
(courtesy Brian Smith, Iowa DOT). ............................................................................................. 126
Figure 11-3 Example of Black and White versus Color Design Sheet with Notes (courtesy Brian Smith,
Iowa DOT). .................................................................................................................................. 127
Figure 11-4. Laser Scan Images showing (a) Integrated Digital Color Photo with x, y, z Geospatial
Coordinates (b) Rendering for Volume Calculations, and (c) Digital Image with x, y, z
Coordinates and Calculated 2 ft Contour Intervals (images courtesy CEER, Iowa State
University). .................................................................................................................................. 128
Figure 11-5. LIDAR Application to (a) Map Corridor, and (b) Define Larger Area Flooding (images
courtesy of Iowa DOT). ............................................................................................................... 129
Figure 11-6. Examples of 3D Surface Renderings showing Complex Geometries (courtesy of McAnich
Corporation and Iowa DOT) ........................................................................................................ 130
Figure 11-7. 3D Rendering and Visualization of Project (courtesy Brian Smith, Iowa DOT) ................. 130
Figure 11-8. Simulated Construction Environment that Allows User to Operate Machine (image courtesy
X,Y,Z Solutions) .......................................................................................................................... 131
Figure 11-9. Inexpensive UAV with High Definition Camera. ................................................................ 131
Figure 11-10. Integrated Data Analytics and Mobile Viewing (image courtesy of AGTEK). ................. 132
Figure 11-11. Intelligent Compaction data as viewed from On-line Viewer (image courtesy of Trimble).132
Figure 11-12. Examples of AMG Machine Application. .......................................................................... 133
Figure 11-13. AMG Application for PCC Paving (a) Site Level Setup and Equipment, and (b) PCC
Stringless Paving Operations (images courtesy of Dale Harrington). ......................................... 134
Figure 11-14. Autonomous Mars Rover (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120806-
mars-landing-curiosity-rover-nasa-jpl-science/) .......................................................................... 136

NCHRP Project 10-77
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Synthesized and Ranked Priorities – General Session from AMG Stakeholder Workshop ........ 3
Table 3-1. Categories and Subcategories of References in the AMG Project Bibliography ...................... 19
Table 3-2. Types of Information and Literature in the AMG Project Bibliography ................................... 19
Table 4-1. Survey Responses by Targeted Survey ..................................................................................... 26
Table 4-2. Contractor Survey Respondents by Industry Segment .............................................................. 27
Table 4-3. Training and Education Survey Respondents by Delivery Organization Type ......................... 28
Table 4-4. Contractor Reasons for Not Utilizing AMG .............................................................................. 29
Table 4-5. Surveyor and Planner Rankings of Surveying Technology Accuracies .................................... 31
Table 4-6. Important DTM Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Software/Hardware
Vendors .......................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 4-7. Factors contributing to EED Accuracy According to Software/Hardware Vendors ................. 32
Table 4-8. Important AMG Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Software/Hardware
Vendors .......................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 4-9. Important Equipment Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Heavy
Equipment Organizations............................................................................................................... 34
Table 4-10. Respondents Reporting Claims or Arbitration Related to AMG ............................................. 36
Table 4-11. Contractor and Agency Opinions of Liability Exposure with EED Exchange ....................... 36
Table 4-12. Contractor and Agency Opinions of Sharing EED and Cooperation ...................................... 36
Table 4-13. Contractor Field Personnel Software Training ........................................................................ 36
Table 4-14. Contractor Field Personnel Hardware Training ....................................................................... 37
Table 4-15. Contractor Machine Operator Training ................................................................................... 37
Table 4-16. AMG Risk Factors rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Vendors........................ 38
Table 4-17. Perceived AMG Benefits by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Vendors ....................... 39
Table 4-18. Comparison of Contractor and Equipment Vendor Productivity Gains with AMG................ 40
Table 4-19. Comparison of Contractor and Equipment Vendor Cost Savings with AMG ......................... 40
Table 5-1. At What Contract Stage Should EED be Exchanged?............................................................... 52
Table 5-2. At What Contract Stage is EED Exchanged? ............................................................................ 52
Table 5-3. Respondents Reporting Claims or Arbitration Related to AMG ............................................... 52
Table 5-4. Contractor and Agency Opinions of Liability Exposure with EED Exchange ......................... 53
Table 5-5. Contractor and Agency Opinions of Sharing EED and Cooperation ........................................ 53
Table 5-6. How Agencies Not Sharing EED Should Limit Liability ......................................................... 54
Table 5-7. How Agencies Currently Sharing EED Limit Liability ............................................................ 54
Table 5-8. Agency Designers Concern with Liability from Sharing EED ................................................. 55
Table 5-9. Search Engine Text String Generation ...................................................................................... 56
Table 6-1. Educational and Training Provided by Software Developers.................................................... 62
Table 6-2. Educational and Training provided by hardware and equipment manufacturers and related
organizations .................................................................................................................................. 63
Table 6-3. Offerings from Educational Institutions .................................................................................... 66
Table 7-1. Required Accuracy for Modeling (Taylor, 2010) ...................................................................... 68
Table 7-2. Recommended Pattern Line Spacing (Taylor, 2010) ................................................................ 74
Table 8-1. Comparison of Traditional String Line Control and Stringless AMG Approaches for PCC
Paving (from Cable et al., 2009) .................................................................................................... 84
Table 8-2. Absolute Mean Error of Estimated Elevation Data Based on Cross-Validation Process using
Different Interpolation Methods .................................................................................................... 91
Table 8-3. Absolute Mean Error of Estimated Elevation Data by Comparing Kriged DTM with 79 points
with Different Interpolation Methods ............................................................................................ 92
Table 9-1. Various Sources of Errors Contributing to the Overall AMG Accuracy (2009 Workshop
Findings) ........................................................................................................................................ 95
Table 9-2. Frequency of Errors and Suggested Detection/Mitigation Strategies........................................ 97
Table 9-3. Summary of Different Position Measurement Technologies .................................................... 99
xi

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 9-4. Comparison of different types of construction machines (after Retscher 2002) ..................... 100
Table 9-5. Typical Two-Way ANOVA Table .......................................................................................... 102
Table 9-6. Summary of repeatability analysis results on GPS elevation measurements on three earthwork
project sites with and without RTK-GPS mounted on roller compactors .................................... 106
Table 9-7. Summary of R&R analysis results on GPS elevation measurements to assess the influence of
change in direction of travel ........................................................................................................ 106
Table 9-8. Example Qualitative Assessment matrix of Accuracy Factors for Various Application
Categories .................................................................................................................................... 107
Table 10-1. Summary of AMG Specifications and Key Attributes .......................................................... 111
Table 10-2. AMG Guide Specification Tool ............................................................................................ 113
xii

NCHRP Project 10-77
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 10–77 by the Earthworks Engineering
Research Center at Iowa State University and the University of Southern Mississippi. Caterpillar Inc. was
a subcontractor for this study.
The authors would like to thank the project panel and the expert contract group for providing timely
feedback. Several representatives from industry participated in a workshop event and conference calls and
contributed to the survey findings of this study. More than 500 individuals provided feedback during
these Phase I research efforts.
xiii

NCHRP Project 10-77
SUMMARY
Automated machine guidance (AMG) links sophisticated design software with construction
equipment to direct the operations of construction machinery with a high level of precision, and improve
the speed and accuracy of the construction process. AMG technology has the potential to improve the
overall quality, safety, and efficiency of transportation project construction. This research project was
undertaken to study AMG implementation barriers and develop strategies for effective implementation of
AMG technology in construction operations. Early in the research effort, an expert contact group was
established to obtain perspectives from agencies, contractors, designers, and equipment manufacturers.
An AMG workshop was conducted to develop a list of capabilities that must exist and obstacles that must
be overcome to facilitate seamless electronic data transfer—from the initial surveying, to the development
of digital terrain models (DTMs), through design and construction, to final inspection and verification.
The synthesis from the workshop helped provide a framework and content for completing the research.
Summarized here are some of the key findings from this research project.
AMG WORKFLOW PROCESSES
Integrating AMG into transportation projects involves complex decision-making and workflow
processes, including selection of surveying methods and technologies, software design and engineering
analytic tools, machine systems, sensor technologies, data interoperability and transfer mechanisms, and
human-machine interaction during construction and training. A set of simplified workflow diagrams and
narratives of processes and technologies have been provided by organizing the topics as follows:
1. Surveying preparation workflow processes,

2. Roadway design workflow processes,
3. Contractor data preparation workflow processes, and
4. Overall integrated AMG workflow processes.
The accompanying narrative attempts to concisely describe the processes involved with the
workflow steps first to establish a baseline for the remainder of the report, and, second, to appreciate that
AMG is best positioned to succeed when survey, design, and construction processes are properly
coordinated. Understanding these AMG workflow processes is also important for developing guide
specifications for effectively implementing AMG where critical roles and responsibilities can be defined.
In discussions with stakeholders in AMG processes, data interoperability was identified in
virtually all the workflow processes as a key factor in providing an efficient AMG process. In the future,
data interoperability will continue to be an area of desired AMG technology advancement.
AMG INFORMATION REVIEW
The research team constructed a searchable electronic library of information related to AMG and
supporting technologies. The project’s bibliography currently contains more than 370 documents that
range from peer-reviewed academic papers to specifications to transportation agency directives to
manufacturer specific videos and others.
The use of AMG technology is relatively new, and our study confirmed that the AMG literature
base is not as mature as that of more-established technologies and procedures. As such, academic papers
accounted for only 28% of the information sources in the AMG project bibliography. Even though
information on AMG does not appear to have a large base of formally published papers, significant
information was garnered through AMG-specific and related websites and from slides from presentations
at meetings held by transportation agencies, software and hardware vendors, and contractors. A detailed
annotated bibliography and list of AMG specifications was generated from the information and literature
review. In addition, a lexicon of terms used in AMG was developed and is reported herein and is used
xi

NCHRP Project 10-77
throughout the report.

One of the key outcomes from the information and literature review was that there is very limited
independently studied information that quantifies AMG machine-level performance or site-level
construction efficiency gains for AMG projects. These areas require more research in order to fully
understand the benefits of using AMG and related technologies in construction processes.
SURVEY OUTCOMES
The project survey garnered information from a sample of all major AMG stakeholder groups,
helping to define the current state of the industry. The project team developed separate survey questions
for the various stakeholder groups, based on internal collaboration and the literature collected to date.
The survey covered the following topics:
• Current computer-aided drafting (CAD) software capabilities
• Types of electronic files that are submitted to contractors (such as .dgn, .dwg, .dtm, .tin,
and LandXML files)
• When these files are made available to the contractors (such as pre-bid or post-award)
• Equipment capabilities and reliability
• Perceived benefits and challenges regarding AMG processes
More than 5,000 survey respondents were solicited. Key survey outcomes are presented in the
report. The full survey report is provided as a separate Appendix. The analysis results are primarily
descriptive statistics and provide new insights into the development of this newly emerged technology.
LEGAL BARRIERS
The use of AMG technology in construction contracting has created changes in business work
processes and contract delivery processes, affecting all the contract stakeholders. Some legal mechanism
is needed to bridge the implied design warranty concerns (Spearin doctrine) and the ability to include
electronic engineered data (EED) as part of the contract documents. Currently, liability waivers and
clauses are performing this function, in part, but they are yet to be tested in the courts.
The work process changes, resulting in functional role changes, have proceeded faster than the
regulatory and legal systems have accommodated. A standard definition of professional roles is needed
across all of the state license boards, which would help define the “responsible charge” of the various
professional stakeholders. Results of this project should be communicated to the National Council of
Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) for consideration in the Model Law document
(NCEES, 2009), which is intended to be used as a reference work in the preparation of amendments to
existing legislation or in the preparation of newly proposed laws. The intent of NCEES in preparing this
document is to present to the jurisdictions a sound and realistic guide that will provide greater uniformity
of qualifications for licensure, to raise these qualifications to a higher level of accomplishment, and to
simplify the interstate licensure of engineers and surveyors.”
Defining professional roles will also require a standardized definition of EED, including what it is
not to be used for. The Proposal for Use of EED in Construction created in 2008 by a joint Associated
General Contractors (AGC) of America and Departments of Transportation (DOT) subcommittee does
not address professional roles or duties, nor does it address the contractual context.
The good news, according to the project surveys, is that despite the legal hurdles; those with
AMG experience perceive that it improves the spirit of cooperation between the contract stakeholders,
through improved constructability communications. The project surveys have also indicated that the
perception of liability regarding the exchange of EED is quite low.
xii

NCHRP Project 10-77
AMG TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES
Good training programs will be necessary for stakeholders to maintain productivity and accuracy
on AMG projects. An especially critical need exists for training (and possibly certification) on 3D
modeling and the use of project control points during construction. Currently, training is provided by
various sources; however, no one source provides all of the training necessary for AMG.
A considerable number of self-paced online opportunities are available, especially for learning
about software. Meanwhile, hands-on, instructor-led opportunities exist predominately for equipment
operation and using positioning hardware. Educational institutions are beginning to include AMG in their
curriculums; however, educational goals are more general than training goals. Therefore, AMG
stakeholders must continue to train personnel as new members are incorporated into their AMG teams.
BEST PRACTICES AND CHALLENGES FOR DESIGN MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The development of fully-integrated, electronic 3D models was more common for building
design and construction projects than transportation projects for a variety of reasons. Recently, however
software and hardware tools have been developed that have considerable capability and intelligence along
with workflows and policies that support them. Therefore, electronic 3D models of transportation projects
are appearing with levels of integration that rival those found in the building construction industry.
Available online training tools strongly supplement more traditional face to face option and will further
facilitate electronic transportation model development.
Wise choices regarding data collection during the initial surveying activities are an important part
of the effort to improve the development of transportation design models. Transportation corridors are
often long enough so that the curvature of the earth and other effects that cannot be address in a strictly
Cartesian coordinate system will come into play. However, proper reference to geodetic surveys and/or
state plane coordinates during both initial and construction surveys will address some of the challenges of
developing and using electronic transportation models. Modern survey tools, including the use of global
positioning system (GPS) surveying are available to increase the efficiency and lower the cost of such
surveys.
IMPACT OF AMG ON EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
Proper use of digital information for AMG can result in less confusion and more accuracy than
traditional methods of earthwork pay item quantification and payment. Survey responses from contractors
indicate that majority of the responding contractors are already using DTMs for estimating quantities,
means and methods, constructability, quantity of the progress of work, and payment.
Most of the equipment vendors indicated potential productivity gain of around 40% and potential
cost savings of about 25 to 40% using AMG. On the other hand, most of the contractors indicated
potential productivity gains of about 10 to 25% and potential cost savings of about 10 to 25% using
AMG. The literature suggests productivity gain ranged from about 5 to 265% and cost savings ranged
from about 10 to 68%, depending on the position measurement technology used and the application. Only
a few case histories provide project specific productivity estimates for AMG for applications involving
road construction, pipe trench excavation, and paving. A cost model is described in this report that relates
productivity to cost savings.
ACCURACY OF AMG PROCESS
The accuracy of the AMG process is primarily influenced by three variables: position
measurement technology, construction process, and human errors. These parameters are application-
specific or machine-specific, and have not been thoroughly studied and or documented in the technical
literature. The research team conducted interviews with various contractors to get feedback on various
xiii

NCHRP Project 10-77
error detection and mitigation strategies.

Survey results indicated that a majority (> 70%) of contractors, software/hardware vendors, and
agencies who responded believe that the number of elevation data points used in creating the DTM is an
important factor in the accuracy of the DTM. A grid of data points was analyzed using six different
interpolation methods to determine the absolute mean error (calculated as the average of absolute value of
the difference between the actual and the estimate value). Results show that the interpolation method and
spatial density of data points are factors.
A summary matrix was developed with attributes of accuracy, coverage range, measurement
principle, and relative cost of various position measurement technologies that are typically used in
construction applications. Laser, ultrasonic, robotic total station, GPS, augmented GPS, assisted GPS (via
mobile phones), locata (pseudolites), and infrared laser technologies were studied. Typical precision
requirements and vertical accuracy requirements for earthwork and paving equipment/operations are
summarized from sources identified in the literature.
AMG GUIDE SPECIFICATION
As part of the research effort, specifications from several transportation authorities were
collected. To compare the contents of the specifications, various attributes were identified and compared
between the specifications. After reviewing all of the collected specifications, it was observed that
although the layout of each specification was different, similar topics were addressed and similar
language was used. After a critical review of the phrase and heading tables, the following six headings
were identified to best characterize the specification language from all of the specification documents —
general, liability, equipment, responsibilities, measurement, and payment. These headings were selected
for inclusion in an AMG guide specification tool. To use the AMG guide specification tool, it would
ideally be reviewed and discussed by agency design and contracting groups and provided to contractors
for review and comments. The guide tool is formatted so that it can be printed, marked for items to
include, marked to add additional items, and space for adding comments.
THE FUTURE OF AMG
Rapid technological developments are propelling AMG towards new capabilities that are
radically expanding and shifting the roles and identities of traditional surveyors, design engineers,
agencies, contractors, and equipment providers. New paradigms are emerging for conceptualizing sites,
designing new and different projects, constructing projects, and ultimately using and maintaining them.
The future of AMG is one that will likely be abundant with new technologies, with advanced software,
improved data interoperability, and new autonomous machine capabilities. To fully benefit, these
developments must be stewarded proactively by a broadly inclusive AMG owner-designer-surveyor-
engineer-construction community. How this community should interact and work together is yet to be
defined, but may require new models, training, and even development of new educational
disciplines/professions.
Whatever the future AMG landscape looks like, it will require planning and new ways of
interaction to garner the full potential of this technology. New partnerships, research and development,
and training across the AMG community will be key to accelerating AMG innovation. The concept for an
AMG professional is introduced in this context. Also, building on discussion elsewhere in this report on
the topic of data interoperability, future needs are presented. A futuristic description of an AMG land
drone is also presented in the context of some of the technical challenges that exist in advancing AMG
capabilities to yet an even higher level than exists today.
xiv

NCHRP Project 10-77
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Using automated machine guidance (AMG) technology in transportation construction projects
allows state agencies and contractors to deliver projects better, safer, faster, and more cost-effectively.
This research project, NCHRP 10-77, Use of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) within the
Transportation Industry, was initiated to advance the integration and implementation of AMG. This report
summarizes the findings and outcomes of this project.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
AMG technologies are continuing to be adopted by contractors because it improves construction

efficiency and quality. Agencies are improving electronic design processes that support AMG
construction and deliver higher quality products to the public. Equipment providers are rapidly advancing
software tools and machines systems to increase automation in the design and construction process.
Motivation to more widely integrate and adopt AMG processes therefore exists. However, the framework
for adoption of AMG into the complex framework of design to construction has not been
comprehensively documented in one source and it would be desirable to more fully develop some details
of the framework. Technical, equipment, software, data exchange, liability/legal, training, and other
barriers limits progress with AMG implementation into construction projects. This study was designed to
understand and develop guidelines to improve AMG implementation.
Figure 1-1 shows what might be considered as common design rendering and equipment on
modern construction projects now, yet the workflow processes to fully benefit from AMG processes is
complex. Also, the spectrum of AMG technologies is now wider than ever with advancements in software
tools, machine technologies, position equipment and sensors. In the future, AMG has the potential to be
integrated well beyond basic earthwork operations. Guidance is needed on how best to advance and
benefit from these technologies.
(a) (b)
Figure 1-1. AMG Applications involving (a) Three-Dimensional (3D) Design and (b) Application of
AMG in Earthwork Grading (images curtesy of Iowa DOT and Caterpillar)
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The project focused on three outcomes:
1. Guide specifications for AMG technology

2. Guidance on the use of such technology in construction projects

NCHRP Project 10-77
3. Strategies for implementing AMG technology into construction projects
Key obstacles that need to be addressed:
• Development and transfer of three-dimensional (3D) electronic files

• General lack of knowledge of the subject matter
• Overcoming legal barriers
• Understanding the impact of AMG technology in terms of both benefits and liabilities
RESEARCH APPROACH
The project team believed it would serve the project well to establish an expert contact group
early in the project, so they could seek its advice throughout the project. The expert contact group
included a full range of experts such as:
• Earthwork and paving contractors

• Equipment manufacturers and dealers
• Software developers
• State agency representatives
• Academics
Due to the broad and complex nature of the AMG technologies and process, the project research
team convened the expert contact group for an intense workshop during the second month of the study.
One objective of the workshop was to accomplish an initial review of survey questions planned for
distribution to garner national and international feedback on implementation of AMG. The other main
objective of the workshop was to develop a list of capabilities that must exist and obstacles that must be
overcome to facilitate seamless electronic data transfer—from initial surveying, to the development of
digital terrain models (DTMs), through design and construction, to final inspection and verification.
The workshop commenced with a presentation about the objectives of the research project and the
workshop, then participants were assigned to one of the following breakout groups.
1. Legal impacts
2. Development of 3D files
3. Accuracy best practices and inputs/outputs
4. Bid item quantity
5. Review of the proposed survey objectives and questions
6. Training information requests
Participants in each group brainstormed lists of challenges and opportunities in their areas.
Participants reviewed the breakout session lists and identified other topics, then combined and organized
the topics into a list. The participants voted on the priority order of the topics, and a list of the top 10
challenges/opportunities was developed. Discussions in subsequent sessions provided details and
synthesized contexts for the top 10 list items (see Table 1-1). Participants also gave feedback about the
survey. The complete Workshop Report is included as Appendix A.

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 1-1. Synthesized and Ranked Priorities – General Session from AMG Stakeholder Workshop
Rank Topic and Synthesis
1 Data: There is a need to improve data management and electronic data exchange formats, such as
xml and LandXML. These data exchange formats are not sufficiently robust to be appropriate for
wide adoption. Improvement of data exchange procedures between design and construction entities is
an opportunity for improvement.
2* Training and Education: Training and education is needed for all types of participants, including
agency and contractor professional engineers, designers, and field personnel.
2* Standardization: In general, it would be desirable to modernize specifications. Non-standardized
AMG specs among states and the lack of standards for software and hardware are hindering the
implementation of AMG. Areas for improvement include better definition of project survey control
(set and maintain) and development of standard data feedback loops as bases of payment (quantities)
for accurate pay estimates.
4 Quality/Improvements: AMG provides opportunities to provide grade checks that cover essentially
100% of the surface. In addition, it is possible to incorporate utilities in models, in their as-built
locations, by referencing them before they are covered. Effective model verification will result in
better QA/QC. Procedure error and clash detection will result in a better final product. Other possible
benefits include increased productivity and improved industry perception and image, due to the use
of higher technology solutions. However, to obtain these benefits, it will be necessary to carefully
identify the proper technology for each specific implementation.
5 3D Model: By conducting initial discussions with stakeholders early in the project using 3D designs,
it is easier to obtain understanding and agreement. Performing virtual construction, before actually
building, results in improved plans and fewer mistakes. Errors become readily apparent during a 3D
video fly-through. Designers can visualize subgrades and find utility conflicts. An opportunity for
this group is to coordinate with the Associated General Contractors Build Information Modeling
(AGC/BIM) group that is working on horizontal construction. Software developers have already
started developing a horizontal construction version of BIM.
6 Benchmark Case Studies: There is an opportunity to develop a set of case studies that demonstrate
the use of AMG through the design and construction process. Contracting authorities and others may
be more willing to adopt and encourage the use of AMG after they have read the case studies.
7 Legal Challenges: Requiring licensed surveyors or engineers to perform the conversion of 3D
models into machine control files could delay the adoption of AMG technology. The question exists
about who is responsible for the design, if plans are stamped twice by two different people: the
original designer and/or the person who was responsible for the conversion. Another question is,
“What becomes of the legal record of the design?” Can a 3D model be part of the contract
documents? Is it possible to make electronic plans the legal document that represent the design?
8 Safety: Considerable increases in safety are possible, because fewer people are working on the
ground around the equipment as they set and reference stakes.
9 Real-Time Network Support for Virtual Real-Time Network to Work for AMG: An opportunity
for improvement would be to enhance virtual real-time networks so that they can replace base
stations for use with AMG applications. Currently, signal latency issues compromise the accuracy to
such an application.
10 AMG Applications for Subgrades/Paving/Overlays: There are some unique challenges and unique
opportunities for AMG applications on subgrades, paving, and overlays.
* Equal number of votes
Building on the knowledge gained from the early workshop outcomes, the research team
deployed surveys that targeted private industry and transportation agencies. More than 5,000 survey
respondents were solicited. The results of the survey findings were used to pinpoint industry needs and
shortcomings within AMG processes. Legal aspects, specifications, training, accuracy, impacts, and other
aspects were studied. The research team also constructed a searchable electronic library of information

NCHRP Project 10-77
related to AMG and supporting technologies. The project’s bibliography contains more than 370
documents organized into categories and sub-categories.
Because educational and training programs were identified as an especially critical need for
stakeholders to maintain productivity and accuracy on AMG projects, this topic was studied in detail by
using survey outcomes and collecting information from equipment providers, contractors, and academic
intuitions on education and training offerings. An assessment of the findings was used to shows that
education and training are provided by various sources; however, no one source provides all the
preparation necessary for full AMG implementation.
The research team also worked on understanding and developing best practices for the creation of
the electronic 3D models that are central to the success of AMG. To develop best practices, the research
team approached this topic from the perspectives of designers, contractors, developers, and those who
synthetize the information.
It is common knowledge that earthwork pay items are historically objects of great dispute
between agencies and contractors, so the research team focused on studying AMG accuracy and its
application to pay quantities. Several technologies were studied in terms of position accuracy. Using the
expert contact group, the research team developed a detailed matrix that lists sources and frequencies of
errors in the AMG process, and, equally importantly, associated error detection and mitigation strategies.
An earth-berm test bed was set up to capture position data to specifically quantify errors
introduced from different terrain modeling methods. Further, field experiments were conducted on three
project sites to evaluate Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) technologies mounted on roller
compactors in terms of position reproducibility and repeatability. The experiments demonstrated the use
of a proposed statistical analysis method to quantify machine-level measurement errors for different
ground conditions, machines, and operational parameters. Because AMG covers a wide range of
equipment and applications, a matrix of similar proposed field studies was developed.
The technology behind AMG can exist in “information silos” within different user functional
areas, so the research team studied and developed detailed workflow process diagrams. The workflow
diagrams were based on survey information, contractor and agency interviews, bibliographic content, and
studies of product information. Although the workflows were developed during the later stages of the
research effort, they are presented at the beginning of this report to establish a baseline for the reader.
Near the end of this report, the results of a specification review and synthesis are presented. The research
team relied upon the information obtained from the literature and specification reviews, the surveys, and
the expert contact group workshop. Results were used to create guide specification tool.
Finally, a discussion of the future of AMG was developed by identifying the various workflow
process and technologies used in AMG and overall needs for advancement discussed in this report.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This rest of this report is organized into eleven chapters. Chapter 2 describes the basic processes
of AMG in terms of the surveying process and the overall AMG design to site-level construction
workflow. These narratives and flow diagrams provide a condensed explanation of the full AMG process.
Chapter 3 describes the literature review and bibliographic library of information sources related
to AMG and establishes an updated AMG lexicon. The project’s bibliography contains more than 370
documents.
Chapter 4 describes the results of a detailed survey that garnered information from key AMG
stakeholders worldwide.
Chapter 5 presents the findings of a study of legal matters that may hamper the implementation of
AMG processes, either by state transportation agencies or contractors, including electronic file use
disclaimers, organized labor issues, and state statutes. Results were categorized into two areas (1)
owner/agency reluctance to share electronic data design (EDD) with contractors and (2) definitions of
functional roles with regard to 3D project delivery.

NCHRP Project 10-77
Chapter 6 lists and describes various AMG training programs and resources. Several on-line
sources are referenced including university level and manufacturer level training. No one source provides
all the training necessary for AMG.
Chapter 7 describes best practices for the development of design models and emphasizes that
good modeling demands communication, training, teamwork, and patience.
Chapter 8 describes the impact of AMG on earthwork quantity estimates, which historically has
been a source of great dispute between agencies and contractors. Information suggests that AMG will
likely result in less confusion and more accuracy than traditional methods of earthwork payment.
Chapter 9 focuses on numerous factors that influence the accuracy of AMG processes.
Chapter 10 summarizes national specifications used for different AMG phases and provides a
guide specification tool with basic language that represents the state-of-practice.
Chapter 11 discusses a range of topics with a focus on exciting future possibilities for AMG
application in transportation construction.
Chapter 12 summarizes key outcomes from this study and describes future development and
research opportunities. Several supporting reports and documents are included as appendices.
A list of abbreviations, acronyms, initialisms, and symbols is provided following the references
list at the end of the report. Four appendices (A through D), not published herein but available on the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) website by searching for NCHRP Web-Only Document 250
(NCHRP Project 10-77), provide further elaboration on the research.

NCHRP Project 10-77
CHAPTER 2: BASIC AMG WORKFLOW PROCESSES

Integrating AMG into transportation projects involves many decisions and workflow processes,
including selection of surveying methods and technologies, software design and engineering analytic
tools, machine systems, sensor technologies, data interoperability and transfer mechanisms, human-
machine interaction during construction and training (Fig. 2-1). The set of simplified workflow diagrams
and narratives that follow reflect the spectrum of processes and technologies that are organized according
to these topics:
1. Surveying preparation workflow processes,

2. Roadway design workflow processes,
3. Contractor data preparation workflow processes, and
4. Overall integrated AMG workflow processes.
The accompanying narrative attempts to concisely describe the processes involved with the
workflow steps first to establish a baseline for the remainder of the report, and, second, to appreciate that
AMG is best positioned to succeed when survey, design, and construction processes are coordinated.
Understanding these AMG workflow processes is also important for developing effective guide
specifications for implementing AMG where critical roles and responsibilities can be defined.
In discussions with stakeholders in AMG processes, data interoperability was identified in
virtually all the workflow processes as a key factor in providing an efficient AMG process. In the future,
data interoperability will continue to be an area of desired AMG technology advancement.
PROJECT DESIGN CONTRACTOR AMG

CONCEPT/SURVEYING AMG DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION
Conv. to Hardware App. Format
Customize Model for Operator

Sync. Field/Design Controls
Minor Additional Data Prep.
Inc. Model into AMG Equip.

Right-of-Way Acquisition
Execute AMG Work Plan

Data Preparation for 3D
Field Quality Verification

Select Reference System
Environmental Study
Establish Control Points
Contracts & Letting

Design Concept
Geometric Design
Model Verification
Develop Work Plan
Execute Work Plan
Project Survey
Check Quality
Public Input
Fuse Data
Figure 2-1. Elements of the AMG Workflow Processes
SURVEYING WORKFLOW
This section and the accompanying Fig. 2-2, describe and show the linkages between the AMG
surveying workflow processes.
Select Reference System
The first step in designing a proposed roadway or other construction project is to complete the
field survey. To begin this process a reference system must be chosen. Choosing a reference system is
very important because all parties involved must reference the chosen system throughout the project.
Examples of reference systems for a project are the National Spatial Reference System; state plane
coordinate systems. local coordinate systems (e.g., county coordinate systems). With very rare
exceptions, the coordinate system must accommodate the curvature of the earth in some way, because

NCHRP Project 10-77
noticeable errors will occur for project much less that one mile in length if the curvature effect is not
recognized. Establishing a reference system that is unique to a project (e.g., setting an arbitrary local
reference point to x = 0, y = 0, z = 0) is not recommended.
Establish Project Control-Monumentation and Metadata
After the owner has decided on a reference system, survey control monuments must be set. The
monuments are positioned to bracket the job and used as check points throughout the project. Monuments
should be outside the jobsite construction footprint but within the original reference network. The more
frequently the points are within the required interval, the more accurate the survey will be. In most cases,
the control monuments will be based on static GPS sessions based on National Geodetic Survey (NGS)
requirements for the desired accuracy. Elevations will normally be based on 3-wire level techniques (i.e.,
uses average of three readings) using a precise automatic level or with digital levels that will produce
required elevation accuracies.
Develop Work Plan to Locate Terrain and Features
In this step, the surveyor must decide on methods for obtaining the desired terrain data for the
project, such as light detection and ranging (LIDAR); stationary terrestrial laser scanning;
photogrammetry; and ground survey (e.g., using a total station). This decision on selection of the survey
method affects the overall quality of the survey. This process normally involves the surveyor analyzing
the project requirements and defining the accuracy and precision that will satisfy the end user(s). Best
practice in this step is for the surveyor to discuss the error budget with the designer and other contributing
parties so that the tolerance is understood by designers and contractors.
Execute Work Plan
Using the survey method chosen in the previous step, the survey crew will collect the field data
needed for the project. Execution of the survey plan can be hindered depending on the method chosen.
Seasonal and environmental constraints, such as heavy snow fall and sun angles, can restrict when and
how the plan is executed.
Fuse Data
All surveying information needs to be combined in a logical way during the data fusion process.
The data fusion process may combine data from ground surveys, LIDAR, and photogrammetry. It must be
recognized that although different data streams have different precisions and accuracies, the fused data
must maintain the specified levels of precision and accuracy. The specified levels of precision and
accuracy cannot be maintained if any of the data being fused is at lower precision or accuracy than what
is required. The fused data is used to generate DTMs, planimetric maps overtop orthometric photos, and
point clouds. Fusing all the data results in a compiled control file that still may need revision depending
on the users’ needs.
In the beginning phase of fusing the data, quality assurance is performed as a preliminary check
on the control file prior to compiling data. Data from various sources can be utilized as independent
checks in overlap areas. For example, photogrammetry or ground survey can be used to find artifacts,
blunders, or gross errors in LIDAR data.
Check Quality
A final quality check is performed after surveying data is compiled. The data is physically
checked in the field to confirm the data is correct and make sure the data is within the defined error

NCHRP Project 10-77
budget. Once this process is finished, the complete control file is created and sent out to all parties
involved with the project.
Figure 2-2. Survey Preparation Workflow Processes
DESIGN PROCESS
Once the survey data is collected and formatted, the results are used by the designers to prepare
the design files. This narrative describes the process for a design-bid-build project. The process used for
design-build and other more integrated project delivery systems will likely be similar, but more integrated
between design and construction. The contracts office uses the design documents to prepare the bid
documents. The design to bid document process involves input from several engineers and teams (see
workflow Fig. 2-3). Once contract documents are published, and the decision is made to use AMG during
the construction phase of the project, the contractor must make use of the information (2D paper and/or
3D electronic design drawings) provided by the designer to develop construction machine-ready files (see

NCHRP Project 10-77
workflow Fig. 2-4). The overall AMG workflow processes (see workflow Fig. 2-5) shows that there are
many steps in completing this process. Discussed in the following are details involved with theses
interconnected workflow processes. The overall AMG workflow processes are summarized in Fig 2-5(a)
(overall) and Fig. 2-5(b) (subset for contractor documentation).
Design Office Conceptualization
The design office will initiate projects by developing an initial concept for the transportation
project. This concept will provide sufficient information for surveyors to perform their initial data
collection and for design disciplines to perform preliminary design work.
Surveying
As discussed earlier, surveyors are usually the first data collectors for a transportation project.
They are responsible for capturing the elevations of the existing topographic surface and finding the
location of key features such as existing buildings and utilities. Skilled operators are required to select the
most suitable surveying hardware for a specific job, because it is important to use good judgment in
obtaining measurements expeditiously with reasonable accuracy to strike a proper balance between cost
and accuracy. Using up too much of the error budget in the first step of data collection and manipulation
leads to low accuracy/precision. It is important to define break lines such as ridge tops, and valleys such
as ditch bottoms. Locating key features such as utility access points is also important. Currently, most
surveying data is collected digitally and passed on electronically to the design team. DOTs might send out
their own survey crews to collect data either using traditional surveying methods or advanced
technologies (e.g. LIDAR). If the exact depths of utilities are required, “pot holing” or various electronic
tracking methods can be used to obtain accurate locations.
Designers Develop Drawings or Models
In a Design-Bid-Build project delivery system, the designers are responsible for developing the
contract documents. In most cases the contract documents are two-dimensional (2D) paper plans or
possibly electronic prints in .PDF format. Sometimes, an electronic three-dimensional (3D) model may be
available or included in the contract documents. The designer will use information obtained from
surveyors such as existing ground surface surveys and the location of important existing features such as
utilities to design the facility that will be constructed. Three dimensional (3D) electronic models are often
developed by designers, even if the contract documents are provided only in 2D format. In such instances,
the designer uses the design application software to generate plan, profile and cross-sectional views from
the 3D model. Therefore, it is possible for a 3D model to be part of the design process, yet not part of the
contract documents.
Project Letting and Award
In the traditional design-bid-build project delivery, the agency will submit the contract documents
with the 2D plans and the winning contractor has the option to use AMG. However, in most cases, if a 3D
electronic model is passed along to a contractor, it will not be part of the contract documents and the
contractor will have to sign a waiver which declares that electronic model is for information only and not
part of the contract documents. The contactors can use the model at their own risk to develop and
customize 3D models for their own use.

NCHRP Project 10-77
Figure 2-3. Design Workflow Processes
CONTRACTOR DATA PREPARATION
Decisions about Using AMG
When contractors are deciding whether a project is a candidate for employing AMG technology,
certain factors should be considered. These factors are: time constraints (e.g., what deadlines are driving
the project?); project size (e.g., Do bigger projects normally have higher priority for AMG?); equipment
availability (e.g., is AMG-ready equipment already in use on other projects? Is buying, renting or leasing
an option?); and availability of skilled labor (e.g., Are there enough trained operators to cover the project
scope of work?). If contractors decide to use AMG, they could subcontract with an independent modeler
or take responsibility for developing a 3D project model.
10

NCHRP Project 10-77
Data Preparation for 3D Conversion
If the decision is made to use AMG, the contractor will need to develop a model specifically for
construction use (Fig. 2-5(b)). If the designer developed a 3D model, it may be possible to enhance and
convert that model so it is suitable for construction. Otherwise, it may be necessary to use 2D data or
other information to develop the construction model. Some contractors choose to develop their own 3D
models from scratch, even if the agency provide a 3D model. The rationale is that the contractor may have
a very efficient system for developing the model and the contractor model and the agency model can be
compared to avoid mistakes. The construction modeler may be able to obtain a 2D electronic file that will
be helpful (e.g., in proprietary CADD format; vector .pdf; non-vector .pdf; or other) or, as a last resort,
2D paper drawings can be used. Nonetheless, the modeler must have a software application that can
perform the data preparation tasks. This software could be the same software that the designer used to
develop the original design although such software is more capable but could be harder to learn. The
software could be provided by the hardware supplier, which is often the case because its capabilities are
better matched with the needs of a construction modeler, or a third-party software could be selected.
The result of the data preparation process are surface models and linework files. A final surface
model that includes pavement surface will have to be developed; in addition, an existing surface model
will have to be referenced. During the contractor’s data preparation process modeler will have to ensure
that the template drops spacing is sufficiently close to provide for smooth surfaces in areas where there
are horizontal and vertical curves, intersections, on- and off-ramps and other geometric transitions. This
concept was explained elsewhere in the section on design. In some cases, a contractor may also develop a
top of subgrade model for areas under the pavement surface while in many other cases, contractors may
use machine based offsets to set the proper elevation of the subgrade, thus eliminating the need for a top
of subgrade model.
Conversion to Hardware Application Format as Necessary
The construction model must be converted into machine control files in a hardware application
format that can be used to guide the operator or control a piece of AMG equipment. When the
construction model was developed using software provided by the AMG equipment vendor the machine
control files can be output directly from that software. Some third-party software can provide machine
control files for most AMG equipment. However, if the construction model has been developed using
software that is primarily intended for developing 3D design models, it may be necessary to import the
construction model to the AMG equipment vendor’s software to output the machine control files.
Model Quality Control
In the model quality control process, contractors visually examine the model to ensure that it can
be constructed and that it appears to carry out the design intent. In some cases, the design model and the
construction model can be compared directly to detect differences. Also, returning the construction model
to the designer for similar examination may be an additional quality assurance step. If the construction
model is returned to the designer, it must be returned in a format that can be accessed by the designer.
Minor Additional Data Preparation by Field Personnel as Necessary
Contractor field personnel may need to make additional minor edits to the contractor version of
the model that was developed. For example, the models may multiple layers and only one layer may be
applicable to a task that is to be performed by a machine operator. By turning on or off layers, field
personnel can show only those that would be important for the task. Other minor preparation items may
include changing colors of features, defining certain areas, or trimming lines.
11

NCHRP Project 10-77
Verify Existing Control Points
After data preparation has been completed for the construction model, contractors will conduct a
field survey using their own surveying equipment. The goal of the survey process is to locate and record
the control points for the project according to the contractor’s surveying equipment. This process can go
smoothly unless there are major discrepancies between the contractor’s field locations and original survey
locations. If the project is a grading project or another type of project where GNSS is being used, before
surveying begins, the contactor must take the key step of setting up a base station. The base station must
be set up in a fixed location where it is clear of trees, tall buildings, or other objects that may obstruct
connections between the base station and overhead satellites. Selecting a poor location for the base station
may result in lower levels of accuracy, and when higher levels of accuracy are required, selecting the
optimal base station location is crucial. After the base station has been properly set up, the survey can
begin.
Paving and subgrade preparation projects may require a higher level of accuracy than general
grading projects, and, in most cases, GNSS locations will not have sufficient accuracy. For these projects,
total stations or high accuracy GNSS techniques will have to be used to locate the control points because
location accuracy is improved by occupying control points for longer times and averaging readings.
Synchronize Field Control and Design Control
After the field data is completely obtained through surveying by the contractor, the control point
locations from the field survey and the design model are brought together and synchronized. This is done
through hardware supplier provided application software. If there are major discrepancies between the
two sets of data, they will be identified by the software and the contractor or designer will need to adjust
accordingly. If no problems are identified through synchronization, the file is complete with three data
components: linework data, surface data, and (just added in this step) calibration (synchronization) data.
Synchronizing field control with design control not only is an important data component for automatic
machine guidance, but also is very useful as a quality control/quality assurance tool because it gives the
contractor final verification of the data quality before the final steps are taken to begin construction.
12

NCHRP Project 10-77
Figure 2-4. Contractor Data Preparation Workflow Processes
Customize Model for Operator Use
Depending on the actual need, the model can be further customized to best fit the operator’s
specific machine. This can be done by turning on the layers that represent the surface that the machine is
grading (such as subgrade or final surface) and turning off the other layers to give an uncluttered view of
the design model. Also, the model can be “trimmed” to focus only on the area where the machine will
work. Sensitive areas can also be marked as off limits for machine operation. Of course, the type of work
should be properly matched with equipment ahead of time. A software application from the hardware
supplier or the third party would be utilized during this process. A person who is trained to operate the
software is also needed.
13

NCHRP Project 10-77
Implement Model into AMG-Ready Equipment
Now, the machine control file is ready to be uploaded to the equipment. Basically, there are three
types of files would be imported into the equipment, including surface model, line-work model, and
calibration file. Again, a software application either from hardware supplier or the third party would be
needed as a basic tool as well as a person who is skilled at using the application.
OVERALL AMG PROCESSES
Execute AMG Work Plan
In this process (Fig. 2-5(a)) the designed work plan is finally being executed. Throughout this
process there could be equipment recalibration and accommodation for design changes.
Quality Control
With AMG-ready equipment in operation, a final check should be performed as a part of quality
control effort. If GNSS equipment is being used, often, a rover can be used to check the accuracy of the
final surface daily. A total station or traditional surveying equipment could also be used to perform this
check; this would be preferable, because it would provide more of an independent check in comparison to
using a GNSS rover. For example, if there is an error in the GNSS base station, such an error would not
be detected by a GNSS rover that was referencing the same base station. Additionally, the ground-
engaging equipment should be placed on a benchmark to further check if the machine control elevation
and location matches with the bench mark elevation and location. The contractor will periodically or even
daily do checks on the machinery. Sometimes the result of these checks will require recalibration of the
machinery as blades may wear and other machinery changes.
14

NCHRP Project 10-77
Figure 2-5(a). Overall AMG Workflow Processes
15

NCHRP Project 10-77
Figure 2-5(b). Contractor Documentation Subset of Overall AMG Workflow Processes
16

NCHRP Project 10-77
CHAPTER 3: AMG INFORMATION AND LEXICON

The research team constructed a searchable electronic library of information related to AMG and
supporting technologies. The project’s bibliography currently contains more than 370 documents that
range from peer-reviewed academic papers to specifications to transportation agency directives to
manufacturer specific videos and others.
The use of AMG technology is relatively new, and our study confirmed that the AMG literature
base is not as mature as that of more-established technologies and procedures. As such, academic papers
accounted for only 28% of the information sources in the AMG project bibliography. Documents
collected by the team range in date from 2000 to 2014. We determined that the first academic proceedings
were from the 1st International Conference on Machine Control and Guidance that took place in 2008,
while the TRB Annual Conference proceedings contain AMG-related papers since 2009.
Even though information on AMG does not appear to have a large base of formally published
papers, significant information was garnered through AMG-specific and -related websites and from slides
from presentations at meetings held by transportation agencies, software and hardware vendors, and
contractors. A detailed annotated bibliography and list of AMG specifications was generated from the
information and literature review. In addition, a lexicon of terms used in AMG was developed and is
reported in this chapter and is used through the remainder of this report.
One of the key outcomes from the information and literature review was that there is very limited
independently studied information that quantifies AMG machine-level performance or site-level
construction efficiency gains for AMG projects. These areas require more research to fully understand the
benefits of using AMG and related technologies in construction processes.
AMG PROJECT BIBLIOGRAPHY TOOL
The AMG information and literature that the team collected were initially organized in an
electronic EndNote® database as a searchable and shareable annotated bibliographic record for the
research team. As a result, the most important outcome of this portion of the project may be the ability to
widely share this bibliography. EndNote® groups can be assigned access and levels of privileges (i.e.,
add, delete, or edit bibliographic records). In effect, the AMG project bibliography can be accessed by
anyone using EndNote®. Should NCHRP decide to do so, access rights can be opened so that people with
interest in AMG (e.g., experts at universities and research centers worldwide) can all contribute to the
growth and maintenance of the AMG bibliographic body of knowledge.
INFORMATION AND LITERATURE SOURCES
Literature for the AMG project bibliography was obtained primarily through search engines and
conferences and workshops.
Search Engines
The following search engines were utilized to discover AMG-related information and literature:
• American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) library

• Copernic Agent Basic, a software application that aggregates following search engines:
AltaVista, AOL Search, Ask.com, Bing, CompuServe, Copernic, Cuil, Enhanced Interactive,
alltheweb.com, Lycos, Netscape Netcenter, Open Directory Project, and Yahoo!
• Engineering Village
• Google
• Google Custom Search: State DOT Search Engine
17

NCHRP Project 10-77
• Google Scholar
• Google U.S. Government Search
• Iowa DOT library and other state DOT search engines
• Transportation Research Information Services Database (TRID)
• Web of Knowledge
• WorldCat
Conferences and Workshops
• Use of AMG Workshop: At the Workshop on the Use of Automated Machine Guidance
(AMG) within the Transportation Industry, which was hosted by the project team on October
1-2, 2009, workshop participants were provided a list of literature and specifications that had
been obtained by the research team as of that date. The 36 participants were asked to review
the list and provide feedback on missing documents and, in particular, any existing
specifications.
A form with the following questions was provided to the participants during breakfast on the
second day and they were asked to provide hand-written answers:
- Dear Workshop Participant: Are you aware of any U.S. or International Agencies
which have specifications, directives, special provisions, etc. regarding AMG?
- Other Notes to NCHRP 10-77 Investigators:
• Transportation Research Board: The team members attended TRB Annual Conferences and
conducted two AMG workshops. The purpose of holding the workshops and attending the
conferences was to disseminate awareness of the project and to obtain information and
literature related to the project. TRB Committees that contributed information were:
- AFH30 Application of Emerging Technologies for Design and Construction
- ABJ95 Visualization in Transportation
- AFB10 Geometric Design Committee
- AL030 Contract Law
- AL040 Emerging Technology Law
• Mississippi Department of Transportation State Study No. 214: This project involves the
creation of an AMG Special Provision for the agency and involved several workshops
attended by more than 50 people from the agency and industry.
Unpublished sources of literature were obtained by referral from participants in workshops and
TRB committee meetings.
AMG PROJECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ORGANIZATION AND TOPICS
The annotated AMG project bibliography is organized into 9 topical categories and 25
subcategories. The primary and sub categories and associated numbers of references are provided in
Table 3-1. Note that EndNote® allows a given reference to be counted in more than one category.
As team members added references to the bibliography they documented the type and topic(s) of
the documents. Table 3-2 lists the types of information and literature in the bibliography.
18

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 3-1. Categories and Subcategories of References in the AMG Project Bibliography
Number of
Reference
Category and Subcategories s
Surveying Technology (Pre-Construction) 80
Satellite Systems (e.g., GPS, GNSS) 32
Stationary Laser Scanning 3
Mobile Laser Scanning 6
Ultrasonic Sensing 0
Infra-Red Sensing 1
Other 13
Low Distortion Coordinate System 6
Geodetic/Map Projection 7
Survey control for AMG 12
Design 57
Electronic Data, Geometrical Drafting 55
Mechanistic Analysis 2
Construction 105
Earthworks (e.g., excavation, placement) 58
Paving (e.g., PCC, HMA, milling) 47
Automation 89
Remote Sensing Based 26
Response Analysis Based 3
Other 60
Specifications/Standards 84
U.S. DOT 82
International 2
As-Built Geometric, Productivity, and QA/QC Documentation 12
Geometrical Mapping 11
Mechanistic Property Mapping (e.g., Intelligent Compaction) 1
Cost 24
Construction 12
Equipment 5
Life-Cycle 7
Education/Training 31
On-line 23
Classroom-based 8
Real Project Sample 30
Table 3-2. Types of Information and Literature in the AMG Project Bibliography
Literature Type Number Percentage

Technical paper 104 28%
Technical report 54 14%
Specifications/Guidance 58 15%
Software 1 1%
Video 22 6%
Website 24 6%
Animation 0 0%
Photos/ Illustrations 26 7%
Posters 6 2%
Blogs, Frequently asked questions, and Online technical support 41 11%
Presentation 39 10%
19

NCHRP Project 10-77
DISSEMINATION
The documents in the AMG Project Bibliography are annotated in Appendix B and are organized
by category and sub-category. Appendix B also includes a complete alphabetical list of references. The
EndNote® database can be shared upon request. Appendix C contains existing AMG specifications from
transportation agencies in the U.S.
AMG LEXICON
One outcome of this aspect of the project is a lexicon of AMG related terms that also serves the
basis for terminology used in this report. A complete list of abbreviations, acronyms, initialisms, and
symbols can be found after the list of works cited at the end of this document.
AMG – The use of computers, positioning technology and geospatial models to provide
horizontal and vertical guidance to the operators of construction equipment. (after NYS DOT
revision to Std. Spec. Sec.625 revision 08-03X)
Asynchronous vs. synchronous – Asynchronous training or education allows each student to

maintain his or her own schedule, usually using streaming video that is delivered by the Internet
or another type of media. Synchronous training requires all students to meet at the same time and
possibly at the same location.
Baseline – A horizontal line measured with special accuracy to provide a base for survey by
triangulation. In GPS surveying, this is the position of the ground point below one receiver’s
antenna relative to the position of the ground point below another receiver’s antenna. When data
from the two receivers are processed together, the result is a baseline comprising a 3D vector
between the two ground stations. (http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/ess/glossary.htm)
(http://www.yourdictionary.com/baseline)
Break Line – A set of consecutive line segments in a 3D geospatial model that represents an
important change in slope of the terrain. Examples are V ditch flow lines, ridge lines and the line
that defines the interface between the road shoulder and the foreslope.
Information Model (IM) – A spatial database that holds most of the valuable information
necessary for design, construction and operation of an asset. Location, dimensions, testing and
quality requirements, cost, scheduled installation, maintenance requirements, and maintenance
history could be included for each building component. A transportation information model
(TIM) would hold equivalent data and information for a transportation facility. (US Department
of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 3D Modeling for Construction 2013)
Cartesian Coordinates – A location reference system that uses two perpendicular lines (for 2D),
or the intersections of three mutually perpendicular planes (for 3D), as coordinate axes (after
WordNet 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University). Cartesian systems do not recognize the curvature
of the earth or the irregularities of the geoid.
Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) – A network of reference stations that

provides GNSS data consisting of carrier phase and code range measurements in support of three-
dimensional positioning, meteorology, space weather, and geophysical applications throughout
the United States. (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/, Dec. 29, 2011)
20

NCHRP Project 10-77
Clash Detection – Identification, inspection and reporting of entities occupying the same space
(hard clash) or are so close (soft clash) that there is insufficient space for access, installation,
safety, etc. (BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers,
Designers, Engineers and Contractors)
Data Preparation – Adding detail and resolving irregularities to the extent necessary to prepare
a 2D or 3D model for conversion into a machine control file.
Horizontal Geodetic Datum – A mathematical model of the earth designed to fit part or all of
the geoid. It is defined by the relationship between an ellipsoid and a point or points on the
topographic surface of the earth. The size and shape of an ellipsoid, and the location of the center
of the ellipsoid with respect to the center of mass of the earth usually define world geodetic
datum.
Design vs Detailing – The research team proposes demarcation between 1) communication of

design intent which requires the supervision of a licensed professional and 2) completing a model
within the design intent which may not require the supervision of a licensed professional. A
similar demarcation exists between contract documents which are sealed by a licensed
professional and shop drawings which are not necessarily sealed in every case.
Digital Elevation Model (DEM) – A digital representation of a topographic surface. DEM can
be presented as a triangulated irregular network (TIN) which is a vector data structure that
partitions geographic space into contiguous, non-overlapping triangles.
(GIS Dictionary, http://support.esri.com/en/knowledgebase/GISDictionary/search)
Digital Surface Model (DSM) – A DEM that includes the bare earth terrain and other features
such as vegetation, buildings and other man-made (artificial) features.
DTM – A DEM that includes the bare earth terrain and can include other features such as
vegetation, buildings and other man-made (artificial) features from the Digital Surface Model.
NOTE: See the American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing “Manual of
Photogrammetry” that makes distinctions between DTMs, DEMS, and TINS, particularly the
latter as TINS are kinds of DTMs.
Dilution of Precision (DOP) – An indicator of the quality of a GPS position based on relative
positions of satellites. DOPs account for each satellite's location relative to the other satellites in
the constellation and their geometry in relation to the GPS receiver. A low DOP value indicates a
higher probability of accuracy. (http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/ess/glossary.htm)
Standard DOPs for GPS applications are:

• PDOP Position (three coordinates)
• HDOP Horizontal (two horizontal coordinates)
• VDOP Vertical (height only)
• TDOP Time (clock offset only).
EDD – Includes horizontal alignments, profiles, cross-sections, slope stakes notes, two-
dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) design files, digital design models (DDM), and
DTM.
EED – Project-related engineering data which are used for defining, designing, spatially locating,
constructing, and documenting a project. This might include documents, publications, geospatial
21

NCHRP Project 10-77
data, 3D models, and graphical information (after New York State Department of Transportation
(NYSDOT) revision to Std. Spec. Sec.625 revision 08-03X)
Fast Static –A method of GPS surveying using occupation times of up to 20 minutes to collect
raw GPS data, then post-processing to achieve sub-centimeter precisions. Typically, the
occupation times vary based on the number of satellites (SVs) in view. Fast Static is also referred
to as Rapid Static.
Geodesy – The branch of applied mathematics that deals with geospatial positioning and
considers the shape of the earth and changes in its gravitational field (after Dictionary.com
Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011).
Geospatial Data – The geometry and spatial positioning of existing or proposed surfaces or
features that are related to a specific coordinate system and elevation datum. (after NYS DOT
revision to Std. Spec. Sec.625 revision 08-03X)
LIDAR – is a remote sensing method that uses light in the form of a pulsed laser to measure
ranges (variable distances) to a target object. These light pulses generate precise, three-
dimensional information about the shape of the object.
Map projection – A mean for transforming the curved surface of an ellipsoid, representing the
Earth’s surface, into a flat two-dimensional plane. Map projections allow features on the Earth’s
surface to be represented horizontally in a plane. They are the basis for not only computer-
generated and paper maps but also the horizontal Cartesian component of the reference system for
DTMs.
Multipath – Interference (similar to ghosts on a television screen) that occurs when GPS signals
arrive at an antenna after traveling different paths. The signal traveling the longer path yields a
larger pseudo range estimate and increases the error. Multiple paths might arise from reflections
off hard surfaces near the antenna.
(http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/ess/glossary.htm
Observation –An uninterrupted collection of GPS data at a particular point in the field. Several
observations are made simultaneously in a session to support computation of baselines from the
data. (http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/ess/glossary.htm)
Real Time Kinematic (RTK) –A technique that differences GPS carrier phase measurements
using a single stationary reference station, or network of them, and radio or cellular links to
provide real-time centimeter-level accuracy corrections to other mobile GPS antennas.
Rover – A mobile GPS receiver that when used in conjunction with a stationary receiver can
obtain differentially corrected ground coordinates. Any receiver used in a dynamic mode is called
a rover. (http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/ess/glossary.htm
Pattern lines – The equivalent of cross section lines on a 3D proposed surface. The surface is
resolved as facets between neighboring pattern lines.
Static (surveying) –A method of GPS surveying using long occupation times (hours in some
cases) to collect raw GPS data, then post processing to achieve sub-centimeter precisions.
(http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/ess/glossary.htm)
22

NCHRP Project 10-77
Site Calibration –A process of computing parameters that establish the relationship between
WGS-84 positions (latitude, longitude and ellipsoid height) determined by GPS observations and
local known coordinates defined by a map projection and elevations above a vertical datum. The
parameters are used to generate local grid coordinates from WGS-84 (and vice-versa) real-time in
the field when using RTK surveying methods.
Spearin Doctrine – A precedent Supreme Court case that defined the legal principle of “Implied
Warranty of Adequate Design Documents Furnished by the Owner.” (United States v. Spearin,
248 U.S. 132 (1918))
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) –A satellite-based system that broadcasts GPS
correction information. WAAS–enabled GPS receivers receive signals from WAAS satellites.
WAAS is the US equivalent of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay (EGNOS) and
Japan’s Multifunctional Transport Satellite Space-based Augmentation System (MSAS).
Work Plan – Discusses how AMG technology will be integrated into other technologies and
methodologies employed on a construction project.
23

NCHRP Project 10-77
CHAPTER 4: KEY STAKEHOLDER SURVEY RESULTS

The project research team developed a detailed plan and conducted (upon NCHRP approval) a
worldwide survey to determine what types of software and equipment are currently being used to
implement AMG processes. The survey involved these groups of stakeholders:
• State transportation agencies;

• Software vendors;
• Equipment vendors; and
• Contractors.
•
The survey covered these topics:
• Current drafting and design software capabilities

• Types of electronic files that are submitted to contractors (e.g., .dgn, .dwg, .dtm, .tin, and
LandXML files)
• When these files are made available to the contractors (e.g., pre-bid or post-award)
• Equipment capabilities and reliability
• Perceived benefits and liabilities of AMG processes
The research team used an Internet browser-based software application to conduct the survey.
Internet browser-based applications allow efficient tabulation of results which improved the efficiency of
the research team, reduced the probability of mistakes, and have been proven effective in increasing
response rates when targeting North American transportation agencies (i.e., up to 80% per NCHRP 37-06
Synthesis). The complete survey report is provided in Appendix D.
METHODOLOGY
Survey Planning and Question Development
The survey was intended to garner information from several groups of AMG stakeholders to
define the current state of the industry. The project team developed separate survey questions for the
different stakeholder groups based on internal collaboration and literature collected as of the survey date.
Draft survey questions were presented to participants in the expert contact group AMG Workshop
(Appendix A), and workshop participants evaluated and commented on the questions.
After the workshop, the draft survey questions were refined and presented to the project technical
advisory panel. Upon receipt and incorporation of the feedback and suggestions from the panel, the
survey questions were finalized and integrated into the on-line survey software. Each survey was assigned
a specific internet address (URL), and all eight survey URLs were posted on a master Earthworks
Engineering Research Center (EERC) webpage hosted by Iowa State University (ISU).
The individual survey URLs were included in an e-mail message to each group of targeted survey
respondents. The list of targeted survey participants, itself, was formed through multiple channels,
including key contacts within the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of America, the TRB, and other
industry leadership.
A total of eight surveys were created; the three surveys that targeted transportation agencies and
five surveys that targeted private industry had the following titles:
• Transportation Agencies
1. Agency Surveying Functions
2. Agency Design Functions
3. Agency Construction/Bid/Contract Functions
24

NCHRP Project 10-77
• Private Industry
4. Construction Contractors
5. Heavy Equipment Suppliers
6. Software/Hardware Vendors
7. Legal Aspects
8. Trainers/Educators
Contact information obtained from previous NCHRP projects, this project’s AMG Workshop,
AGC national membership, and a Mississippi DOT (MDOT) AMG project was consolidated and
designated Master List 1. Target survey respondents on this list were expected to complete at least one of
the surveys. Contact information from leaders of the Professional Engineering License Boards and the
Professional Land Surveyor Associations in each of the 50 states was also collected and designated
Master List 2. Target survey respondents on this list were expected to forward the emailed information
about the survey to members of their organizations or committees and request that those individuals
complete surveys.
After the master lists were prepared, the research team completed these steps to solicit survey
responses:
1. prepared a letter that described the project and the survey and included a request to help
solicit responses from colleagues with knowledge of AMG;
2. used the letter as the body of personalized email messages that were sent to target
recipients on both Master List 1 and Master List 2.
3. sent personalized, follow-up e-mail messages to all recipients to remind them to forward
information about the project and the survey to colleagues and to remind them about the
survey closing date; and
4. contacted survey respondents who had indicated interest in further communication on the
survey by phone to obtain additional information or address concerns.
More than 5,000 survey respondents were solicited beginning on February 1, 2010, and the
process concluded on February 26, 2010.
Monitoring
Throughout the deployment and implementation of the surveys, contact with the respondents was
an ongoing process. Several survey recipients requested an alternate way to take the survey (such as
manually-printed copies of the questions by facsimile or electronic document). These requests included
the accommodation of viewing the totality of questions before completing the survey(s). The project team
handled each of the requests on an individual basis.
The team also recorded three survey responses manually, with the respondent on the telephone,
followed by completing the on-line survey for the respondent. These responses, taken orally, were the
result of several unresolved technical issues experienced by the three survey respondents (out of 504
responses, across all questionnaires).
On the day of the e-mail solicitation for Master List 1, three respondents replied by phone or e-
mail that the on-line survey application would not allow them to submit or register their questionnaire
responses upon conclusion at the final page (or screen). The issue was investigated and one root cause
was determined to be that the survey software application requires each question to be classified as either
mandatory or non-mandatory, and most of the questions were designated as mandatory. Although the
survey instrument was tested considerably (on a smaller scale) prior to this project, the team decided to
switch all survey questions to non-mandatory to allow the collection of all feedback from respondents.
Encountering this issue likely resulted in many of the survey questions submitted as unanswered,
although it is not determined how many respondents would have abandoned the survey completely if they
were unable to answer a mandatory question.
25

NCHRP Project 10-77
While the technical issues that were encountered on the first day were resolved by changing each
survey question in each group of surveys to non-mandatory, it also created an unintended consequence in
that the software application automatically provided a No Answer option to all questions, which were
previously classified as mandatory. This created an additional category in most of the response tables,
thereby having one category for respondents who specifically click the No Answer option and one for
respondents who did not have any response and skipped the question entirely as Non-Completed.
The team suspects that some of the errors encountered by participants could have been caused by
incompatible versions of Java programming language or PHP scripting language. This was not found in
initial survey validation testing, as it was not possible to test the survey on every computer, JavaScript,
and PHP combination. It appeared to occur on older computers with a sample of the respondents while
attempting to complete the questionnaires. Unfortunately, there was not sufficient time after the e-mail
solicitation to individually troubleshoot system or software incompatibilities.
On the first day of the survey launch, it was feared that this technical problem would scale to a
greater number of survey recipients, who were volunteering their time to complete rather complicated
surveys. In the end, switching the survey questions to non-mandatory was an effort to mitigate the
technical issue, which could have resulted in a lower response rate.
Assessment
A total of 504 people responded in whole or in part to the eight targeted surveys (See Table 4-1).
The largest number of responses was from agency construction/procurement functional areas and
construction contractors. The lowest response rate concerned the Legal Aspects survey.
Table 4-1. Survey Responses by Targeted Survey

No. of
Target Survey Respondents
Agency Surveying Functions 76
Agency Design Functions 65
Agency Construction/Bid/Contract Functions 121
Construction Contractors 118
Heavy Equipment Suppliers 30
Software/Hardware Vendors 34
Legal Aspects 12
Trainers/Educators 48
Total Number of Survey Respondents 504
RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
Contractors
One hundred and eighteen (118) contractors participated in the survey. Of those, 30 reported
experience with AMG. Those thirty contractors, half of which have five or more years’ experience with
the technology, represent close to 700 projects annually utilizing automated machine grading, mainly for
mass and fine grading earthwork applications. Approximately half of the contractor respondents where
middle or executive managers representing mostly prime contractors in the public works sector of the
industry. At least one respondent reported use of AMG for subgrade trimming equipment and landfill
compaction operations. Of the 118 contractors, 62 participants answered each survey question while 56
answered only a portion of the questions. Sixty-four percent (76 total) of the contractor respondents
classified themselves as prime contractors. Approximately half (49%) of all the contractors responding
are prime contractors involved in the public works segment of the industry. Conversely, twenty-one
percent (21%) of all the contractor respondents identified themselves with the private sector of the
26

NCHRP Project 10-77
industry as shown in Table 3-2.
Table 4-2. Contractor Survey Respondents by Industry Segment

Answer Count Percentage
Prime Contractor-Private Market (A) 18 15%
Prime Contractor-Public Works Market (B) 58 49%
Subcontractor-Private Market (C) 3 3%
Subcontractor-Public Works Market (D) 10 9%
Consultant-Private Market (E) 4 3%
Consultant-Public Works Market (F) 2 2%
Other* 5 4%
No answer 18 15%
Non-completed 0 —
*Other: Prime - Private & Public, Oil Refinery, General Contractor, Equipment
Dealer, DOT.
Responding Transportation Agencies
Three of the project's surveys were targeted at specific transportation agency functional areas
defined by NCHRP Synthesis 385, Information Technology for Efficient Project Delivery: Design,
Planning and Surveying, Procurement and Construction. The three targeted transportation agency surveys
represent responses from 49 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Ontario, Canada. Most of
the transportation agency responses were from individual state agencies; however, there were also
responses from city, county and consulting transportation agencies and organizations. Figure 3-2
represents transportation agency responses from the United States by type of survey completed:
D=Design Transportation Agency Survey Questionnaire

PS-Planning and Surveying Transportation Agency Survey Questionnaire
PC=Procurement and Construction Transportation Agency Survey Questionnaire
Figure 4-1. Transportation Agency Responses by U.S. State
Software and Hardware Vendors
Thirty-four (34) persons associated with AMG software and/or hardware functions participated in
this survey. The survey results consist of 19 surveys in which all the questions were answered in total.
27

NCHRP Project 10-77
Heavy Equipment Vendors
Thirty (30) persons associated with AMG heavy construction equipment functions participated in
this survey. The survey consisted of 61 questions.
Training and Educational Organizations
The survey questionnaire for training and educational organizations was intended for discovery of
AMG training opportunities related to the process in general, specific hardware or software utilization, or
for operators on heavy equipment. This specific survey was populated by forty-eight (48) responses with
42 full responses and 6 responses not completely filled out. As the close deadline of the online surveys
approached and responses to this survey were low, the survey URL was solicited on the Associated
Schools of Construction (ASC) email list server, therefore approximately half of the respondents were
from universities or colleges as displayed in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3. Training and Education Survey Respondents by Delivery Organization Type
Surveying and positioning equipment manufacturer and dealer (A) 3 6%
Design software developer and down channel sales and training partner 0 0%
(B)
Equipment manufacturer and dealer (C) 4 4%
Independent professional trainer (D) 1 2%
University or college (E) 26 54%
Other* 8 17%
No answer 8 17%
Not completed 0 0%
*Other: DOT, Construction Company, Construction Company, General Contractor, Construction positioning equipment dealer,
FHWA, Engineering Company, 3D MC software & Design.
BARRIERS TO AMG ADOPTION
Contractor Perspective
The contractor’s survey contained a series of questions regarding the reasons why their
organization was not utilizing AMG. The answers given to these questions are summarized as follows and
displayed in Table 3-4 below:
28

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 4-4. Contractor Reasons for Not Utilizing AMG

Reasons Chosen No. Percentage
Cost of entry is too high. (A) 14 22%
Lack of vendor/technical support in this geographic area. (B) 6 10%
Do not understand the technology. (C) 7 11%
Lack of employees with appropriate technical skills. (D) 6 10%
We plan to learn more about AMG. (E) 6 10%
We plan to implement AMG in the future. (F) 7 11%
The owners we work for will not cooperate. (G) 2 3%
Other* 15 24%
*Other: Nothing for our work has been developed; Not our market; No applications in building construction;
We build buildings not roads; Subcontract most grading work; Our Subcontractors utilize this technology; We
do not directly use it, does not apply to our trades; We use very little machinery- five skid-steers, two
telescopic lifts, one small excavator; This work is subcontracted out; We do not self-perform site work; We
are an engineering firm; and We do not perform site/grading work; Existing sub surface conditions may not
be safe/allow; We use 3-D technology, but grade with layout because of entrance fees
Agency Perspective
Obstacles to 3D design at transportation agencies were reported as follows:
• A perceived steep/deep learning curve for transitioning from 2D to 3D design. This challenge
had the most individual votes and the lowest standard deviation.
• The perception of overcoming existing transportation agency “mindsets” of design
procedures.
• The perceived additional time and effort required to develop accurate 3D models, compared
to conventional 2D design.
• A perceived lack of agency design specifications for 3D models.
DTM CREATION, USE, AND SHARING
Contractor Perspective
Responses to the Contractor Survey revealed the following:
• Within construction contracting organizations, the creation of the DTMs are tasked equally
between estimator functional roles, specialists whose functional role is dedicated to modeling,
and outsourced consultants.
• The DTMs that contractors use for AMG are just as likely to be created from scratch
(completely built from 2D plans) as shared at 100% design maturity by the owner’s
engineers.
• When an owner shares EED with the contractor (for DTM purposes), the exchange process is
not standardized in the industry. It is just as likely to occur at pre-bid, post-bid, or post-
contract stages.
• More than half of the EED is shared via computer networks and compact disc (CD) or digital
video disk (DVD) media.
• More than half of the responding contractors share EED back to the owner (as-built
conditions).
• A heavy majority of the responding contractors utilize DTMs for estimating quantities and
29

NCHRP Project 10-77
the means and methods of earthwork construction tasks.

• A heavy majority of the contractors utilize DTMs for quantity work progress and payment.
• Contractors report a wide range costs for DTM development ($150-$2,500 per lane mile;
$750 per acre).
Agency Designer Perspective
Transportation design agencies reported the following from their targeted survey:
• Most of the design agencies receive DTMs from their agency’s planning/survey function.
• A roughly equal number of design units produce DTMs as do not.
• A roughly equal number of respondents share DTMs with contractors as those who do not.
• When DTMs are shared by agencies with contractors, a clear majority share them “as-is,”
with no manipulation for AMG.
• The most common EED shared are: 1) horizontal and vertical alignment, 2) conventional
design files, and 3) TIN triangles.
• The most common file formats shared are: 1) .dtm, 2) .tin, and 3) .ttm, in that order,
descending.
• A clear majority of the designers report that 3D models expose design errors and that 3D
design review requires additional time (versus the 2D process).
Agency Planner and Surveyor Perspective
• The photogrammetric topographical collection method was the most prevalent at agencies,
followed by RTK GPS and conventional Total Station surveying.
• 76% of agency planning/survey units indicate that they create DTMs.
Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective
• An equal number of procurement/construction units responding to the survey share EED with
contractors as those that do not.
• A clear majority of respondents in the agency procurement/construction functional areas
reported that field inspectors do not have access to DTMs.
Agency Procurement/Construction Functional Areas (Agency P/C), which do not share EED with
contractors:
• A clear majority of procurement/construction units that do not share EED hold the opinion
that contractors should be responsible for creation of DTMs for AMG.
• An equal split of procurement/construction respondents felt that the responsibility for DTM
contract compliance rested with either the agency or the contractor.
• A clear majority of the respondents who do not share EED felt that agencies should share
DTMs with contractors and vice-versa.
• A clear majority of procurement/construction units that do not share EED hold the opinion
that contractors should share EED back to the agency.
• A clear majority of procurement/construction units that do not share EED felt that DTMs
should be shared with contractors in the pre-bid stage, while a significant portion of
respondents felt that the exchange should occur after a pre-construction conference. It appears
from comments received that many plan to provide DTMs at pre-bid.
Agency P/C Functional Areas, which do share EED with contractors:
30

NCHRP Project 10-77
• Of procurement/construction units that do share EED, an equal number of respondents stated

that DTM creation responsibility was that of either the contractor or the agency.
• A clear majority reported that EED exchange actually occurs after contract execution, at the
pre-construction conference or stage.
• A clear majority of respondents reported that the owner’s warranty of constructible plans was
for 2D-stamped drawings, only.
• About half of the respondents who share EED with contractors reported contractors
exchanging EED back to the agency.
• Alignment EED was the most reported dataset exchanged.
• An equal number of respondents who exchange EED with contractors reported that primary
responsibility for DTM creation was either with the agency or the contractor.
• Regarding revisions to the DTM after the initial share with the contractor, agencies were split
on how to align plan changes to the model.
AMG QUALITY CONTROL AND ACCURACY
Topographical Data and Collection
• Transportation planning and surveying units are increasingly mature in their data collection
processes and use of cutting-edge technology (RTK Post-Processed GPS Surveying).
• Most surveying units responding to the surveys have effective and validated RTK GPS
specifications, which guide their processes of data collection.
• Planners and surveyors reported that Robotic Total Station surveying was slightly more
accurate than conventional total station surveying, both of which were deemed considerably
more accurate than GPS and Photogrammetric surveying, as shown in Table 4-3. The lower
the number in the table, the higher the rating of the respondents (on a scale of 1 to 4).
• 90% of respondents reported horizontal accuracy of 2 cm or less with GPS surveying
equipment.
• 45% of respondents reported vertical accuracy of 2 cm or less with GPS surveying
equipment.
Table 4-5. Surveyor and Planner Rankings of Surveying Technology Accuracies

Ranking of Surveying Technology Std.
Accuracy No. Dev. Avg. Rank
Robotic Total Station surveying 32 0.50 1.52 1
Conventional Total Station surveying 32 0.79 1.52 2
GPS 48 0.93 2.29 3
Photogrammetric 75 0.79 3.57 4
31

NCHRP Project 10-77
Digital Terrain Modeling
Table 4-6 and Table 4-7 summarize survey feedback concerning DTM and EED accuracy.
Table 4-6. Important DTM Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and
Software/Hardware Vendors
DTM Accuracy Factors* Contractor Agency P/C SW/HW
Number of data points in DTM 70% 90% 80%
File types of shared data 52% 56% 67%
Number of data translations 56% 77% 63%
DTM constructability review 77% 70% 73%
* Percentage of respondents choosing DTM Accuracy as Important or Very Important
Table 4-7. Factors contributing to EED Accuracy According to Software/Hardware Vendors

Factors Contributing to EED Accuracy* SW/HW
Elevation point density 94%
Adhering to CAD Standard/Defined work-flow processes 81%
The sequence of when the models are created in the delivery process 88%
Engineer design competencies in design software use 100%
* Percentage of respondents choosing EED Accuracy as Important or Very Important
AMG Accuracy
Table 4-8 summarize survey feedback concerning factors affecting AMG accuracy.
Table 4-8. Important AMG Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and
Software/Hardware Vendors
Agency
AMG Accuracy Factors* Contractor P/C SW/HW
File size of DTM 46% 47% 10%
Training/competencies of model builders 100% 90% 100%
Training/competencies of field personnel (rover-checkers) 85% 85% 70%
Training/Competencies of grading machine operators 81% 88% 70%
Training/competencies of owner-agency inspectors 52% 70% 60%
In-field QA/QC programs/procedures 89% 84% 80%
* Percentage of respondents choosing AMG Accuracy as Important or Very Important
32

NCHRP Project 10-77
QA/QC
Comments received concerning QC/QA are as follows:
Contractors:
• A large majority of contractors felt that AMG Quality control and tolerances should be
controlled via existing standard specifications, versus special provisions.
• A majority of contractors who use AMG perform grade checking with a rover.
• A majority of contractors using AMG perform QA/QC checks daily, versus hourly or by
sections/geometry of the project.
• A majority of contractors with AMG experience believe that the process exposes design errors
earlier than conventional processes and, therefore, reduces rework.
• A majority of contractors with AMG experience believe that the process is more accurate than
conventional staking processes.
• A majority of contractors felt that providing a surveyor and rover to agencies was sufficient
for quality assurance, while they were equally divided over providing: 1) rover and training, 2)
grade stakes and grade sheets, and 3) cut sheets.
Heavy Equipment: The following AMG accuracy factors were reported as very important or
important by the contractor, agency, and heavy-equipment-vendor stakeholder groups, by more than 50%
of their respective respondents:
• Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station, Laser)

• Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic-control response)
• Lack of operator training
• End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software)
• Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer
• Lack of system understanding (technological) by inspectors/owners
• Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process
• Errors in setting up the control network
• Inaccuracies in final surfaces of the DTM
Tolerances specified by agencies/owners were deemed important by the contractors and

equipment vendors, but only a third of the agency respondents thought the same. Hydraulic sensor
selection was considered an important accuracy factor by more than half the contractors, while less than a
half of the agencies and less than a third of the vendors rated it as important.
33

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 4-9. Important Equipment Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Heavy
Equipment Organizations
Agency
Heavy Equipment Accuracy Factors* Contractor P/C H_Eqp
Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station,
77% 75% 81%
Laser)
Tolerances specified by agencies/owners 73% 34% 50%
Hydraulic sensor selection 58% 44% 23%
Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic
77% 62% 63%
control response)
Lack of operator training 80% 75% 81%
End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software) 77% 65% 63%
Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer 85% 70% 93%
Lack of system understanding (technological) by
62% 70% 94%
inspectors/owners
Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process 88% 74% 88%
Errors in setting up the control network 96% 89% 94%
Inaccuracies in final surfaces of the DTM 96% 75% 80%
Inaccuracies in the original survey contained in the DTM 81% 74% 87%
Not cross-checking the final ground model of the DTM with
69% N/A N/A
owner.
* Percentage of respondents choosing Heavy Equipment Accuracy as Important or Very Important
Contractors:
• 72% of the responding contractors felt that quality control should be specified using the
exiting agency standard specifications.
• A clear majority of the responding contractors felt that conforming or aligning the DTM to
the contract documents was their responsibility, versus the owner/agency or consultants.
• A clear majority of the responding contractors felt that design changes to the DTM after
creation of the original model was their responsibility.
• Almost half of the contractors responding perform quality control by grade checking with a
GPS rover.
• A majority of the responding contractors check AMG quality daily, versus hourly or by
project geometry.
EED AND DATA FORMATS
The research team attempted to determine the data formats involved with EED exchanged
between the functional areas during the project lifecycle, in iterations of inputs and outputs (or imports
and exports) between software applications. A primary software application does not currently exist to
perform all the functions required in producing the information for each stakeholder. Therefore, the
exchange of EED is accomplished by exporting the data produced in one function’s software application
and importing it into another function’s software application.
The survey questionnaires revealed that the most-utilized output file formats were .dgn and .tin, at
the beginning of this multi-function process, and that the end-users of the EED for AMG were using
.dwg, .dxf, and .dgn files for input file types (to create .dtm or other proprietary file formats).
Figure 3-3 shows a general Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0) map of the
34

NCHRP Project 10-77
EED exchanged across AMG functions and the file formats utilized in the exchanges, as reported by the
survey respondents. The percentages represent the number of respondents who chose that file type as an
input or output to their functional processes.
Figure 4-2. File Types of EED Exchanged Across AMG Functions
Interestingly, about half of the software and hardware vendors responded that their products were
capable of data exchange via LandXML, and they ranked that methodology as the most important.
LandXML was reported as one of the most prevalent import/export file formats by the software and
hardware vendors, along with .dwg, .dgn, and .dxf file formats. The vendors expressed that their software
import/export capabilities were equally driven by owner and contractor needs, requirements, and
demands.
AMG LEGAL ASPECTS
The project investigators developed a separate, specific survey questionnaire to gain information
about the perceived legal issues surrounding AMG. Only 12 people responded and only one respondent
was an attorney (who did not provide identification or contact information). The most pertinent piece of
information gained from the survey was in response to the question, “Are you aware of any legal issues
regarding 3D design or the sharing of EED in general?” One respondent provided this answer:
“An administrative ruling by the PE and PLS licensing board requires [professional
engineer/professional land surveyor] PE/PLS to build the 3D model. This is being challenged. Essentially,
if the design is complete, then building the model is a CAD technician function that does not involve
design decisions.” This small piece of information is pertinent and is addressed in Chapter 4. Additional
questions about legal issues associated with the filing of claims and the sharing of EED were included in
the survey questionnaires for contractors, agency design, and agency procurement/construction functions.
In response to the question, “Has your agency been involved in any ‘claims for equitable
adjustment’ or arbitration associated with shared electronic design and/or DTMs?” only three responses
answered affirmative out of 304 total respondents to the three questionnaires (or two of 57 answering yes
or no to the question). These responses are shown in Table 4-10.
35

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 4-10. Respondents Reporting Claims or Arbitration Related to AMG

Contractors Agency Designers Agency P/C
Answer No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Yes (Y) 2 1% 1 2% 0 0%
No (N) 21 18% 12 18% 21 17%
No answer 48 41% 15 23% 37 31%
Non-completed 47 40% 37 57% 63 52%
Table 4-11 reveals that agencies feel more exposure to liability because of sharing EED than
contractors feel they should.
Table 4-11. Contractor and Agency Opinions of Liability Exposure with EED Exchange
Sharing EED with contractors
exposes agencies to liability. Contractors Agency P/C
Strongly Agree 0 1
Agree 4 15
Disagree 20 17
No Opinion 3 2
No Answer 44 23
Non-Completed 47 63
Table 4-12 reveals that a majority of both contractor- and agency-respondents, who answered the
question, strongly agree that the sharing of EED contributes to a culture of cooperation between the
stakeholders.
Table 4-12. Contractor and Agency Opinions of Sharing EED and Cooperation
Sharing EED with contributes to
cooperation between owner-contractor. Contractors Agency P/C
Strongly Agree 16 5
Agree 9 31
Disagree 1 0
No Opinion 1 3
No Answer 44 19
Non-Completed 47 63
AMG EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Contractors reported that they receive AMG training mainly from equipment and software
vendors, as well as from internal “champions.” Agency survey responses regarding AMG training were
negligible. And agency responses regarding 3D CAD training were negligible. Most of the respondents to
the training course survey were academic institutions. Results presented in Table 4-13 through Table 4-14
are from the Contractor survey.
Table 4-13. Contractor Field Personnel Software Training

Survey Question: How do your field personnel receive primary training for the required software?
36

NCHRP Project 10-77
Answer No. Percentage

Our organization trains internally. (A) 21 41%
Our organization hires 3rd-party consultants. (B) 7 14%
The hardware/software vendors train as part of purchase agreement. (C) 23 45%
N/A (D) 0 0%
Other 0 0%
Table 4-14. Contractor Field Personnel Hardware Training

Survey Question: How do your field personnel receive primary training for AMG related hardware
(handheld and tablet computers, GPS rovers, etc.)?

N/A (D) 0 0%
Other* 1 2%
*Other: Trade shows
Table 4-15. Contractor Machine Operator Training

Survey Question: How do your machine operators and maintainers receive primary training for Machine-
specific equipment related to AMG?

N/A (D) 1 2%
Other 0 0%
PERCEIVED RISKS OF AMG
Contractors, agencies, and heavy equipment manufacturers/vendors were queried in their

respective surveys to rate factors pertaining to risks in AMG technologies and methodologies on a scale
of 1 to 5. (1=Highest Risk and 5=Lowest Risk.) The results from the three surveys are shown in Table 3-
16, with the percentages representing responses of 1 and 2, or highest and next-highest risk.
37

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 4-16. AMG Risk Factors rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Vendors
AMG Risk Factors* Contractor Agency P/C H_Eqp
Lack of cooperation by owner-agency inspectors 57% 33% 80%
High initial investment in equipment-lack of Return-On-
Investment data 54% 43% 44%
Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internally) 75% 58% 81%
Lack of training required to implement (internally) 64% 74% 69%
Dependence on 3rd-party consultants for DTM creation 41% 42% 69%
Operators may be distracted by looking at monitors in the
machine cockpits 11% N/A N/A
* Percentage of respondents choosing the factor at the two highest risk levels
Here are the notable differences in stakeholder responses regarding importance or significance of
the risk:
• Lack of cooperation by owner-agency inspectors: More than half of the contractors and
almost all of the equipment vendors considered this factor as highly important, while only a
third of the agency respondents thought so.
• Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internally): More than half of all three
stakeholder groups felt that this factor was important, with the contractors and equipment
vendors voting roughly the same (75%-80%).
• Lack of training required to implement (internally): All stakeholders were unanimous in
voting this factor as important (64%-74%).
• Dependence on third-party consultants for DTM creation: Less than half of the respondents
considered this factor highly important, with exception of the equipment vendors.
Respondents to the Contractor survey provided additional risk factors and comments deemed important:
• Maintenance of AMG-related hardware on the equipment can be expensive over time

• No matter how you say it, the risks are greater without the use of AMG
• Over-reliance on AMG capabilities
• Complacency regarding QA/QC
• Incomplete site calibration
• Safety to ground personnel
• Risk of damage to expensive equipment
• Faulty equipment
• Reception to GPS
• Employee cooperation
PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF AMG
Contractors, agencies, and heavy equipment manufacturers/vendors were queried in their

respective surveys to rate factors pertaining to perceived benefits in AMG technologies and
methodologies on a scale of 1 to 5. (1=Highest Risk and 5=Lowest Risk). The results from the three
surveys are shown in Table 4-17, with the percentages representing responses of 1 and 2 (highest and
next-highest risk).
38

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 4-17. Perceived AMG Benefits by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Vendors
Perceived AMG Benefits* Contractor Agency P/C H_Eqp
Labor savings (direct cost on projects) 96% 76% 80%
Environmental-Fuel savings N/A 36% 60%
Project schedule compression 86% 57% 93%
Avoidance of re-work (re-grading) 93% 60% 87%
As-built documentation 58% 57% 80%
Ease of constructability review 44% 49% 73%
Jobsite safety 68% 44% 60%
Safety of the traveling public N/A 31% 40%
* Percentage of respondents choosing the benefit at the two highest risk levels
All three types of AMG stakeholders agreed as to the value of the perceived benefits (queried in
the survey questions), except for constructability review and jobsite safety.
• Labor savings (direct cost on projects): More than half of all stakeholders deemed this benefit
as high, and virtually 100% of contractors rated this benefit as high.
• Environmental-fuel savings: By mistake, this question was not asked of the contractors. More
than half of the equipment vendors rated it as a benefit, while less than half of the agencies
considered it high.
• Project schedule compression: Contractors and vendors realize this benefit, while just more
than half of the agencies do.
• Avoidance of re-work (re-grading): Virtually all contractors and vendors rated this benefit
very high, while almost half of the agencies did not.
• As-built documentation: The equipment vendors rated this benefit very high, over both
contractors and agencies.
• Ease of constructability review: The equipment vendors rated this benefit very high, while
contractors and agencies apparently do realize the benefit.
• Jobsite safety: This question was not asked of the contractors and neither agencies nor
vendors rated it highly.
Productivity gains and cost savings reported by contractors and equipment vendors are compared
in Table 4-18 and Table 4-19. The equipment vendors appear more optimistic about construction
productivity gains, while the majority of contractors report gains between 11 and 25%. A majority of the
contractors report cost savings between 6 and 25% using AMG.
39

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 4-18. Comparison of Contractor and Equipment Vendor Productivity Gains with AMG
Productivity Increase Using AMG Contractor Vendor

0-5% 0 1
6-10% 0 0
11-15% 4 2
16-20% 6 0
20-25% 5 1
26-30% 3 1
31-35% 3 2
36-40% 2 6
Table 4-19. Comparison of Contractor and Equipment Vendor Cost Savings with AMG
Cost Savings Using AMG Contractor Vendor

0-5% 0 0
6-10% 6 1
11-15% 4 0
16-20% 5 0
20-25% 7 2
26-30% 1 2
31-35% 0 3
36-40% 0 0
>50% 1 1
In open-ended questioning, one contractor reported the following benefit: “Allows operators
greater understanding of design of final product.” Also in open-ended questioning, equipment vendors
offered the following about customer (contractor) cost savings: “It really depends on the size of the job
and how much AMG is utilized. The more AMG utilized, the higher the percentage. Low-end 10%, high
end could be upwards of 50%.” And “Depending on design and type of projects, ranges for 40 to 60%.”
and “Back office costs increase, even as field costs decrease. Overall, 10%.”
40

NCHRP Project 10-77
CHAPTER 5: LEGAL ASPECTS OF AMG DATA

The objective of this portion of the research is associated with Task 3: Identify any current legal
barriers that may prevent the use of AMG processes, either by state transportation agencies or contractors,
including electronic file use disclaimers, organized labor issues, and state statutes. Sources of information
were obtained from the Internet, LexisNexis Legal database, the literature review, acquired agency DOT
specifications, and the project’s expert contract group. The primary drivers of potential legal barriers that
could hinder the adoption rate of AMG technology can be synthesized into two primary areas, according
to our research:
• Owner/agency reluctance to share EDD with contractors

• Definition of functional roles regarding 3D project delivery
OWNER/AGENCY RELUCTANCE TO SHARE EED WITH CONTRACTORS
For the AMG process to function, DTMs or 3D terrain models that can be interpreted by
construction equipment must be created. Creating these models requires technical expertise in surveying
and construction. Most significantly, it is time consuming for the contractor. If the owner/agency can
share EED with the contractor, it saves the modeler time, versus completely reverse-engineering the data
from 2D paper drawings.
It is most probable that construction projects will be delivered completely in 3D at some point in
the future. In the private sector of the commercial building segment of the industry, this trend is well
underway with BIM and its associated contracting mechanism, Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). On the
transportation side, agencies such as the NYSDOT are currently transitioning to 3D for the entire project
lifecycle. When these transitions to 3D delivery do occur, electronic models will replace paper drawings
as official contract documents.
Owner/agencies are hesitant to transform their business processes to 3D, because it entails
massive transformation of their design functional areas. To make the transition, agency design functions
must not only attain and train personnel in new software and re-engineer their work processes, but they
need to adopt an entirely different mental paradigm, through their designers. Once this change occurs—to
3D contract documents—it could present transportation agencies and subsequent legal cases with some
challenges, because of the contract delivery systems mandated by public works statutes and the Spearin
doctrine.
Design-Bid-Build (D-B-B) is a contract delivery system in which the facility project is prepared
to a theoretical 100% level of definition in design and contract documents, at which point a contractor is
procured by the owner through a competitive bidding process. Once a bidder is selected, a contract is
awarded for construction. Some courts have theorized that the level of design maturity is acknowledged
as less than 100% in many unit-price contracts, as the contractor’s consideration (payment) is based upon
units installed (or not).
WARRANTY OF DESIGN
The Spearin doctrine is the name of the precedent Supreme Court case that defined the legal
principle of “Implied Warranty of Adequate Design Documents Furnished by the Owner” almost a
century ago. The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in 1918 (United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S.
132 (1918)), which influences how parties to Design-Bid-Build construction project delivery develop
their contracts, plans, specifications, and administrative processes. The courts have used the Spearin
doctrine, with some recent exceptions, to decide construction disputes involving mistakes or errors in the
project owner’s contract documents.
The Smith, Currie & Hancock law firm explains the legal precedent as: “The owner’s implied
41

NCHRP Project 10-77
warranty of the adequacy of the plans and specifications furnished by the owner is of immense
importance to the contractor, and the breach of this warranty forms the basis of a large portion of
contractor claims. The existence of an implied warranty regarding owner-furnished plans and
specifications was recognized in United States v. Spearin. The so-called Spearin doctrine has become well
established in virtually every American jurisdiction that has considered the question of who must bear
responsibility for the results of defective, inaccurate, or incomplete plans and specifications. In layman’s
language, the doctrine states that when an owner supplies the plans and specifications for a construction
project, the contractor cannot be held liable for an unsatisfactory result attributable solely to defects or
inadequacies in those plans and specifications.” (Kelleher, 2005)
The Spearin doctrine is central to many of the potential legal issues associated with AMG in that:
• Owners are legitimately concerned with the implied warranty of their designs in D-B-B
delivery (on all projects, as well as those involving AMG).
• Owners are legitimately concerned about derivative works (such as DTMs) created from
sharing EDD with contractors (to enhance their productivity and efficiency) and, therefore,
incur liability under Spearin.
• If owners share EDD with contractors, they seek an assurance that their liability is limited
under Spearin.
• If owners share EDD with contractors, they seek an assurance that the intent of their design is
communicated to and implemented by the contractor, again, under Spearin.
• DTMs typically require a level of design detail that the design professional does not include
in the contract drawings. This creates a situation in which the contractor creates additional
design data, for their own use, to perform AMG. How does the “design intent” stay preserved
to not trigger Spearin liabilities?
The current state of affairs for transportation agencies and AMG is that the Contract Documents
are issued in 2D and, therefore, DTMs and other EDD are not considered part of the contract. Agencies
are sharing EDD because of pressure from contractors, who are realizing the efficiencies gained by
adoption of AMG.
This sharing occurs under the framework of business and contracting processes designed for 2D
delivery. In fact, many of the AMG specifications (amendments to standard and special provisions),
which we obtained in this research, define new processes required for 3D, in a 2D environment, and
especially regarding sharing EDD.
One of the consistent elements of the AMG specifications that we obtained was the limitation of
liability, under Spearin, in the form of separate liability waiver forms or clauses in the specifications
themselves (most common). Sample liability clauses embedded in AMG specifications follow in this
chapter.
The Montana DOT (MDT) has a Waiver of Liability form for the sharing of EDD via “computer-
generated disks” with utility companies. This form is interesting in that MDT states it is not responsible if
the data is converted into an alternate file format, that notification of design revisions will not be made or
supplied, that the agency is not responsible for viruses or loss of data on the recipient’s computers, that
the EDD is only to be shared with consultant engineers involved with the project, and that the utility
company agrees to share EDD back to the agency on said project.
Statements from the Delaware DOT (DelDOT)’s “Release for Delivery of Documents in
Electronic Form to a Contractor” is provided in Figure 5-1:
42

NCHRP Project 10-77
All parties agree that the ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS are not, nor shall they be construed to be, a product
or products. It is specifically agreed by the CONTRACTOR that there are no warranties of any kind in such
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS or in the media in which they are contained, either expressed or implied, including any
warranty of merchantability or warranty of fitness. Any warranty of merchantability or warranty of fitness is expressly
waived by the CONTRACTOR.
It is understood by the CONTRACTOR that the media in which any ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS are
transmitted can deteriorate over time and under various conditions. In addition, any conversion of the format is solely
the responsibility of the CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR understands and agrees that the conversion of
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS from the machine-readable format used by the DEPARTMENT to some other format
may introduce errors or other inaccuracies. The CONTRACTOR therefore agrees to confirm the accuracy of any
converted ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS before using them. The CONTRACTOR agrees to accept all responsibility for
any errors or inaccuracies and to release the DEPARTMENT from any liability or claims for recovery of damages or
expenses arising as the result of such errors or inaccuracies.
The CONTRACTOR agrees to waive any and all claims for liability against the DEPARTMENT resulting in any
way from use of the ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS or from any failure by the CONTRACTOR to comply with the
requirements of this Agreement.
Figure 5-1. Statements from DelDOT’s “Release for Delivery of Documents in Electronic Form to a
Contractor”
Statements from the California DOT (Caltrans), in a non-standard special provision for District
11 are provided in Figure 5-2, for “5-1 Machine Control Grading”:
The electronic information provided is available solely for the convenience of the Contractor. It is expressly
understood and agreed that the Department assumes no responsibility in respect to the sufficiency or accuracy of the
electronic information. Use of the electronic information shall be subject to all of the conditions and limitations set forth
in Section 2-1.03, “Examination of Plans, Specifications, Contract, and Site of Work,” of the Standard Specifications
and these special provisions.
Figure 5-2. Statements from California DOT (Caltrans) states, in a non-standard special provision
for District 11.
Statements from the Iowa DOT, in “Developmental Specifications for Global Positioning System
Machine Control Grading” are provided in Figure 5-3 (boldface added by the authors of this report).
43

NCHRP Project 10-77
Article 1105.04 of the Standard Specifications shall apply with the additional clarification that information
shown on the plans shall govern over the provided electronic data.
This information shall not be considered a representation of actual conditions to be encountered during
construction. Furnishing this information does not relieve the Contractor from the responsibility of making an
investigation of conditions to be encountered including, but not limited to site visits, and basing the bid on information
obtained from these investigations, and the professional interpretations and judgment of the Contractor. The Contractor
shall assume the risk of error if the information is used for any purposes for which the information was not intended.
Any assumptions the Contractor makes from this electronic information shall be at their risk.
The Contracting Authority will develop and provide electronic data to the Contractor for review as
part of the contract documents. The Contractor shall independently ensure that the electronic data will function in
their machine control grading system.
Figure 5-3. Statements from Iowa DOT, in “Developmental Specifications for Global Positioning
System Machine Control Grading”
Statements from the Indiana DOT (INDOT) Draft Specification for allowing Stakeless
Excavation on a Highway Contract, Section 105.08 are provided in Figure 5-4.
The plans may contain or indicate areas of the project where the Department is providing electronic surface
models of the roadway embankment construction. The remaining areas may be constructed with conventional survey
techniques unless the contractor chooses to develop and submit a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) to the Engineer for
review. The Contractor using the Contract Documents and any Department furnished DTM data, if available, shall
independently develop the DTM. To use any Department furnished DTM data, the Contractor shall release the
Department and its designers from all liability for the accuracy of the data and its conformance to the Contract
Documents furnished by the Department.
Figure 5-4. Statements from the Indiana DOT (INDOT) Draft Specification for allowing Stakeless
Excavation on a Highway Contract, Section 105.08.
Further, California Department of Transportation in a non-standard special provision for District

11, "5-1 Machine Control Grading" states the following:
Electronic information, consisting of survey and design information including but not limited to cross-section
models, alignment data, and plan view geometry, does not constitute part of the bid or contract documents. This
information, used for project design and quantity estimation purposes, is provided for the bidder’s use in automation of
bid estimating, grading and contractor staking if provided in the contract. Furnishing this information does not relieve a
bidder or contractor from the responsibility of making an investigation of conditions to be encountered. The bidder or
contractor shall assume the risk of error if the information is used for any purposes for which the information was not
intended. Any assumptions the bidder or contractor may make from this electronic information is at the bidder or
contractor's risk. The bidder or contractor assumes the sole risk of liability or loss if the bidder or contractor does rely
on this electronic information to its detriment, delay or loss.
Figure 5-5. Statement from California DOT (Caltrans) states, in a non-standard special provision
for District 11.
From these examples, only one expressly states that the EED is a part of the contract documents.
The others either expressly state that the EED is not a part of the contract documents or refer to existing
standard specifications that define the duty of the contractor to ensure alignment of the contract
44

NCHRP Project 10-77
documents with actual field conditions of the project (which, under precedent law and most standard
specifications, is requirement in the bidding stage).
This brings up the significance of when the EED is shared with the contractor. If it is shared in
the bidding stage by agencies, is it not then considered as “bidding documents,” which typically are a part
of the contract documents? Would a court classify EED as part of the bidding documents, despite a
liability waiver or clause?
Interestingly, agency contract administrators who were not sharing EED with contractors thought,
by a margin of 2:1, that the EED exchange should occur with the bidding documents. Agencies that are
currently sharing EED with contractors polled 3:1 that the exchange is made after a contract is issued and
a preconstruction meeting occurs (see Table 5-1 to Table 5-8 cornering survey outcomes on this topic).
COPYRIGHTS
The exercise of copyrights has a basis in the United States through the Copyright Law of the
United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code. The federal
law addresses copyrights of architectural works, but not specifically those of engineers, surveyors, or civil
facilities. Copyrights attributed to engineering and surveying works must be claimed indirectly through
the federal law’s language pertaining to pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.
In the private sector of the industry, the emergence of BIM has addressed the issue of original
works contributed by stakeholders to a community digital model with restrictions on content use via
licensing agreements. In the public works sector, where the owner is an agency or a government,
copyright law becomes more complicated.
While the federal copyright law preempts state law, each state is free to decide its own copyright
laws, as they pertain to works that are self-created (which is the case when a transportation agency
produces the design and contract documents either internally or through consultants). Each state can enact
its own copyright provisions of self-created works (within the bounds of the federal law) or let them fall
into the public domain.
Legal research on this issue revealed significant information about employee copyrights while
under the employ of agencies and about how many states copyright their own laws (codes). (Self-created
works by the federal government are not copyrightable.)
The literature review discovered an unpublished paper on the Florida Surveying and Mapping
Society website, which attempts to make the case that surveys are copyrightable works (Florida
Surveying and Mapping Society, undated). The paper, however, does not distinguish between private and
public works contracts, or between state and federal copyright law, instead using precedent legal cases to
make its arguments. Neither the project surveys nor the expert contract group legal workshop session
specifically addressed copyright issues, although survey respondents had many opportunities to raise the
issue, if it was a concern. As 3D design becomes more commonplace in the public works and
transportation segment of the industry, copyright could potentially become an issue.
DEFINITION OF FUNCTIONAL ROLES
As stated, AMG technology is disrupting status quo business processes that have been in place
for decades (for 2D project delivery). The shifting of business processes and tasks entails changes in the
functional roles that are responsible for implementing the shift. The major functional roles associated with
AMG processes are surveying, layout and staking, and designing. These functional roles have
traditionally fallen under the responsibility of professionally-licensed land surveyors, engineers, and
architects. Each of these professionally-licensed roles is regulated in the United States by state licensing
boards, which define the requirements and responsibilities for attaining and maintaining these licenses.
The board requirements often become legislative state codes (state law).
Our research revealed three principal areas associated with AMG, which appear to be barriers to
AMG process implementation:
45

NCHRP Project 10-77
• Approval and certification of design intent

• Definition of design, engineering, and surveying
• Responsible charge
Approval and Certification of Design Intent
As in traditional 2D project delivery, for the benefit of the public, engineering expertise is applied
to contract documents before construction is implemented. Contract documents, specifically the drawings,
must contain a professional “seal,” indicating the professional’s approval and application of sound
engineering skill and knowledge in their development. Typically, these “seals” are applied to paper
drawings with a tool like that which a notary public uses.
When the drawings are distributed in electronic formats, without paper for crimping with the seal,
an alternate method of approval and certification is required. Some jurisdictions are using “digital
signatures,” which are given legal significance in the United States. These types of digital signatures
involve mathematical algorithms and cryptography to ensure the identity of the signatory. The
requirements are not standard across all the states. Two examples of digital signature requirements, which
differ, are presented below. The two state license boards differ as to how EED can be signed and sealed
by a professional engineer.
Statements from the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, 21 NCAC
56.1103, Standard Certification Requirements are provided in Figure 5-6 (boldface added by the authors
of this report):
(d) Electronically Transmitted Documents. Documents, including drawings, specifications and reports that are
transmitted electronically beyond the direct control of the licensee shall have the computer-generated seal removed
from the original file, unless signed with a digital signature as defined in Paragraph (e) of this Rule. After removal of the
seal the electronic media shall have the following inserted in lieu of the signature and date: “This document originally
issued and sealed by (name of sealer), (license number), on (Date of sealing). This medium shall not be considered a
certified document.” Hardcopy documents containing the original seal, signature and date of the licensee may be
duplicated by photocopy or electronic scanning processes and distributed either in hardcopy or electronic medium. The
scanned digital files of certified documents are not subject to the requirements of this Paragraph. The
electronic transmission beyond the direct control of the licensee of CAD, vector or other files subject to easy
editing are subject to the requirements of this paragraph. Easy editing is based on the file consisting of separate
elements that can be individually modified or deleted. Documents that are excepted from certification by a statement
meeting the requirements of Subparagraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this Rule are not subject to the requirements of this
Paragraph.
(e) Documents to be electronically transmitted beyond the direct control of the licensee that are signed using
a digital signature, shall contain the authentication procedure in a secure mode and a list of the hardware, software and
parameters used to prepare the document(s). Secure mode means that the authentication procedure has protective
measures to prevent alteration or overriding of the authentication procedure. The term “digital signature” shall be an
electronic authentication process that is attached to or logically associated with an electronic document. The digital
signature shall be: (1) Unique to the licensee using it; (2) Capable of verification; (3) Under the sole control of the
licensee; and (4) Linked to a document in such a manner that the digital signature is invalidated if any data in the
document is changed.
(f) A digital signature process may be submitted to the Board for approval that it meets the criteria set forth in
Subparagraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this Rule. The licensee shall confirm that if another process is used, that it meets
the criteria.
Figure 5-6. Statements from the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors,
21 NCAC 56.1103, Standard Certification Requirements.
Statements from the Florida Board of Professional Engineers, 61G15-23.003 Procedures for
46

NCHRP Project 10-77
Signing and Sealing Electronically Transmitted Plans, Specifications, Reports or Other Documents are
provided in Figure 5-7 (boldface added by the authors of this report):
(1) Engineering work which must be sealed under the provisions of Section 471.025, F.S., may be signed
electronically or digitally as provided herein by the professional engineer in responsible charge. As used herein, the
terms “digital signature” and “electronic signature” shall have the meanings ascribed to them in Sections 668.003(3)
and (4), F.S. The affixing of a digital or electronic signature to engineering work as provided herein shall constitute the
sealing of such work.
(a) A scanned image of an original signature shall not be used in lieu of a digital or electronic
signature; (b) The date that the electronic signature file was created or the digital signature was placed into the
document must appear on the document in the same manner as date is required to be applied when a licensee uses
the manual sealing procedure set out in Rule 61G15-23.002, F.A.C.
(2) A professional engineer utilizing a digital signature to seal engineering work shall assure that the digital
signature is: (a) Unique to the person using it; (b) Capable of verification; (c) Under the sole control of the person using
it; (d) Linked to a document in such a manner that the electronic signature is invalidated if any data in the document are
changed.
(3) A professional engineer utilizing an electronic signature to seal engineering work shall create a
“signature” file that contains the engineer’s name and PE number, a brief overall description of the engineering
documents, and a list of the electronic files to be sealed. Each file in the list shall be identified by its file name utilizing
relative Uniform Resource Locators (URL) syntax described in the Internet Architecture Board’s Request for Comments
(RFC) 1738, December 1994, which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference by the Board and can be
obtained from the Internet Website: http://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1738.txt. Each file shall have an authentication code
defined as an SHA-1 message digest described in Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 180-1 “Secure
Hash Standard,” 1995 April 17, which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference by the Board and can be
obtained from the Internet Website: http://www.itl.nist.gov/div897/pubs/fip180-1.htm. The licenses shall then create a
report that contains the engineer’s name and PE number, a brief overall description of the engineering documents in
question and the authentication code of the signature file. This report shall be printed and manually signed, dated, and
sealed by the professional engineer in responsible charge. The signature file is defined as sealed if the signature file’s
authentication code matches the authentication code on the printed, manually signed, dated and sealed report. Each
electronic file listed in a sealed signature file is defined as sealed if the listed authentication code in the signature file
matches the electronic file’s computed authentication code. Rulemaking Authority 471.025(1), 668.006 FS. Law
Implemented 471.025 FS. History–New 8-18-98, Amended 9-4-05, 5-6-09.
Figure 5-7. Statements from the Florida Board of Professional Engineers, 61G15-23.003 Procedures
for Signing and Sealing Electronically Transmitted Plans, Specifications, Reports or Other
Documents.
Definition of Design, Engineering, and Surveying
All stakeholders involved with the construction contract, as well as society in general, benefit
from a system in which engineering and surveying competencies are incorporated into project design by
licensed professionals. AMG processes and technology involve not only the sharing of EED, but creating
a derivative work from that of the professional.
The level of detail required in a DTM for machine readability often exceeds what the designer or
surveyor is required to provide. In essence, the party practicing AMG must ascertain the “intent” of the
designer and, then, add additional detail to the model, which adheres to the final specified product. This
does not appear on the surface to differ from the standard practice of shop drawings or working drawings
that are of greater detail than contained in the contract documents. These shop drawings are submitted to
the owner or their agent for review and approval to communicate the contractor’s interpretation of the
design intent, as it relates to fabrication and/or construction means and methods.
Disregarding political considerations, confusion and issues with the role of the professional are
apparent when it comes to the AMG process and manipulation of EED. The literature review collected the
following clarification memorandum from the license board in California (boldface emphasis added by
47

NCHRP Project 10-77
the authors of this report).

Statements from the Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, State of California,
Clarification Regarding the use of Global Positioning System Equipment by Unlicensed Individuals,
November 21, 2006 is provided in Figure 5-8 (boldface added by the authors of this report).
If an unlicensed individual, such as a grading contractor, performs topographic surveying and calculations for
construction staking without being under the responsible charge of a Professional Land Surveyor or a Professional Civil
Engineer, then that unlicensed individual would be practicing land surveying or civil engineering without legal authority.
However, a determination whether someone is practicing land surveying or civil engineering without legal authority can
only be made by the Board on a case by case basis after a full investigation and review of all the specific facts involved
in the case.
In addition, the use of GPS equipment by an unlicensed individual does not constitute the practice of land
surveying or civil engineering on its face. It is the specific tasks that are being performed that may constitute the
practice of land surveying or civil engineering; not the equipment used to perform those tasks.
If a Professional Land Surveyor or Professional Civil Engineer knowingly assists an unlicensed individual in
performing illegal activities, then the licensee could be subject to disciplinary action for aiding and abetting. Simply
providing data, including in electronic format, to an unlicensed individual, such as a grading contractor, is not
in itself a violation of the laws—unless the licensee is aware that the unlicensed individual will be using that
data to perform tasks that constitute the practice of land surveying or civil engineering.
Figure 5-8. Statements from the Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, State of
California, Clarification Regarding the use of Global Positioning System Equipment by Unlicensed
Individuals, November 21, 2006.
Comments from a surveying professional in a trade publication (Harry, 2007) are provided in
Figure 5-9 (boldface added by the authors of this report).
48

NCHRP Project 10-77
A strikingly important phenomenon in the field of surveying is currently sweeping the nation. Some states are
now requiring that a licensed engineer or surveyor be in responsible charge of “digital stakeouts” or 3D data models
created for use in 3D machine control systems.
In some cases, states are requiring that a licensed individual must be in charge when any type of data
manipulation occurs. This phenomenon is not occurring through new legislation but, rather, by clarifying
existing legislation. The state boards of licensure are clarifying that data preparation and/or the manipulation thereof
is an engineering and/or surveying function, and thereby requires a professional license.
Based on my research, providing CAD files or CAD data to other parties who plan to use them for
construction without a licensed engineer or surveyor on staff could be a violation in some states. If it isn’t a clear
violation, it could be aiding and abetting a violation; either way, it is a sign that the profession is notably changing.
Consider the following scenarios and how these situations could affect you or your firm:
Scenario 1: An engineer has provided CAD drawings to a contractor who was awarded the construction of
the project. The contractor will then prepare a 3D model of the engineer’s data for use in 3D machine-controlled
equipment. If the engineer is aware that the contractor does not have a licensed professional engineer or land surveyor
on staff, he may be abusing the law of certain states that requires a licensed engineer or surveyor to be in responsible
charge of that information and its intended use for grading purposes.
Scenario 2: Because the surveyor at a firm does not develop data conducive for use by machine-controlled
equipment and the contractor has no desire to learn CAD or 3D modeling, a data prep firm has been utilized.
Performing this service may be in violation of state statutes that require a licensed engineer or surveyor be in
responsible charge of the modeling effort.
Scenario 3: After acquiring data from a licensed engineer and placing it into service in an automated dozer, a
contractor encounters an issue on the project that requires him to alter or manipulate the data so the project can move
ahead under deadline. By manipulating that data, the contractor may be in violation of state statutes.
Scenario 4: An engineer or surveyor has provided data to a contractor. Although this data was sufficient to
obtain review and approval from the local jurisdictions, the contractor requires a level of grading detail to construct the
site that is far greater than what the engineer provided. (In many cases contractors require a model that is accurate to
at least a 3/8" tolerance.) For instance, the contractor complains that a cul-de-sac has only one contour running
through it, making it impossible to determine exactly how the area should be graded. When the contractor calls for
assistance, the modeler responds, “I have no more budget on that project and the plans you have are all you are going
to receive. They should be good since they are approved for construction.” This lack of quality causes loss of time and
money on the project, and so the contractor seeks reimbursement from the modeler. Failing to receive it, the contractor
turns the engineer or surveyor into the state board for developing an incomplete work product and an insufficient set of
design data. He claims that the preparer has not met the standards of practice nor his responsibilities as an engineer or
surveyor to a sufficient level that the project can be built. The state investigator agrees that the plans are devoid of
enough information for an automated dozer to construct the site.
Figure 5-9. Comments from a surveying professional in a trade publication (see Harry, 2007)
A professional engineer reports in a trade publication concerns about North Carolina’s

interpretation regarding DTM detailing (Harry, 2007) as provided in Figure 5-10 (boldface added by the
authors of this report).
Another state that is experiencing this phenomenon is North Carolina. According to Andrew Ritter, executive
director of the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, the determination of a violation comes
down to the word “manipulation.” He says, “The data preparation of the 3D model is fine just so long as the
contractor doesn’t create new data. If interpretations need to be made, then the engineer or surveyor should be
called and be held responsible for a decision.”
Ritter continues, “The work needs to be 100% complete. If the engineer or surveyor hasn’t prepared a
constructible product or if he/she hasn’t met the standards of practice, then that becomes a civil issue between the
engineer or surveyor and the contractor.” Ritter says that the North Carolina board is looking at expanding the
definition of engineering and surveying at this time.
49

NCHRP Project 10-77
Figure 5-10. Professional engineer reports in a trade publication concerns about North Carolina’s
interpretation regarding DTM detailing (see Harry, 2007)
The surveying profession is a good example of functional role change occurring. Statements from
Joseph (2007) are provided in Figure 5-11:
It means that with the wide-spread access to highly automated positioning technologies such as laser
scanning, regional network RTK positioning and GPS based machine control has put a huge percentage of traditional
surveying measurement scope of practice into the public domain. Prior to this, surveyors have worked in a
relatively narrow domain of service providers such as boundary/construction surveying, mapping agencies,
utilities, engineering, architecture, public highways, etc. Surveyors will now find themselves in demand across a
broad spectrum of industries who can find many uses for this new domain of affordable, high speed, high precision
positioning and measurement systems.
There are a growing number of licensed surveyors shifting from engineering firms to construction firms as
staff surveyors in charge of GPS related construction surveying operations. Just how large this shift is remains to be
seen. Next, there is a parallel shift of party chiefs (sometimes along with their field assistants) with GPS experience
over to construction companies. They are motivated by decreasing construction staking work in their engineering firms,
with higher wages paid on construction jobs and better benefits. Third, it seemed that every construction company that
had made a significant investment in machine control had also purchased a RTK setup as well. Surveyors have told
me that after they do the initial stakeout of a job site, the contractors will locate the hubs with their own GPS so that
they can replace the hubs as necessary and do spot checks as the work progresses. The surveyors are not called back
again until it is time for curb and gutter or critical infrastructure such as sewers, etc.
Figure 5-11. Statements from surveying profession (see Joseph, 2007)
Yet another perspective (see Harry, 2007) is provided in Figure 5-12:
The advertisements for 3D machine control have touted its benefits to include minimizing and or eliminating
survey stakeout. Many design firms have noticed a reduction in their stakeout work due to the contractor’s abilities to
perform this task in-house using these new technologies. In terms of public safety, as Smith pointed out, several errors
have emerged that produced potentially incorrect construction projects. It naturally follows that the issues of
accountability and liability are then raised, and someone needs to be clearly responsible for design, design
interpretations and construction. Since the technology seems to be performing as promised, it is producing significant
savings for developers and profits for contractors. With the advent of subscription-based real-time GPS networks,
contractors can now set their own control without the need for a traditional surveyor. With easy-to-use 3D engineering
software, many can prepare their own 3D data sets, and with RTK GPS many can collect their own as-builts. The
combination of 3D machine control technology with real-time GPS networks is becoming a force to be reckoned with--
and the state boards are beginning the reckoning.
Figure 5-12. Comments from Harry (2007) considering issues of accountability and liability
Responsible Charge
Signing and sealing drawings for professional architects, engineers, and land surveyors is
conditional upon their having an expressed level of control over the services being performed.
“Responsible charge” of engineering refers to that degree of control a professional is required to maintain
over design, engineering, or surveying decisions made personally or by others over which the
professional exercises supervisory direction and control authority (Responsible Charge Determination,
2003).
These requirements are stipulated by the various licensing boards and appear to be typically
50

NCHRP Project 10-77
uniform when read in context of typical 2D construction project delivery. Violation of these rules could
potentially result in loss of license and/or criminal charges. When AMG processes are considered
considering these requirements, where 3D CAD files may be shared and then manipulated for machine
control use, the language and definition of “responsible charge” seems to be unclear.
A professional surveyor has expressed this phenomenon in a trade publication (Harry, 2007) as
provided in Figure 5-13 (boldface added by the authors of this report).
New rules are not being written about data prep responsibility. Instead, existing rules are expanding
to cover the new technology of 3D machine control. I learned more about these developments by researching the
position statements created in some states regarding licensure for data prep.
Kentucky Board of Engineers Position Statement 3D Modeling Statement:
The development of electronic engineering-related or surveying-related design data shall be subject to
licensure requirements under KRS 322. Development of data such as templates, cross sections, Digital Terrain
Models, etc. to be used for the purposes of construction, earthwork, grading, mining and stakeout is within
the definition of the practice of engineering under KRS 322.010(4)(a)1 and shall be performed under the
responsible charge of a Professional Engineer. Any such data that establishes, reestablishes, locates property
lines, locates real property rights or defines real property lot divisions and layout is within the definition of the practice
of Land Surveying under KRS 322.010(10)(a)1 and shall be done under the responsible charge of a Professional Land
Surveyor.
In Kentucky, if a data prep company prepares the data, it must have a licensed person in the state in
responsible charge. The thinking is that if a licensed individual were involved, he or she may have caught those errors
or at least have been held responsible to catch those errors. So, licensed professionals will now be obtaining fees for
work that they were previously being methodically cut out of; however, they now run the very real risk of not actually
having the skill to produce the required data set. For instance, if the professional engineer or licensed surveyor
prepares an inadequate data set, then he/she may be held liable for delivering an incomplete work product.
The dilemma is that the business model for engineers often doesn’t cover actual construction;
instead it covers the review and approval of a set of plans in the local jurisdiction. These plans do not include
the detailed information required to actually construct the site (just ask a local contractor if you doubt this statement).
The business model for the surveyor often does involve preparing construction grade quality data; however,
many surveyors are not familiar with 3D machine control technologies and the specialized data required for this work.
In other words, the traditional, point-based stakeout doesn’t cut it anymore in many cases--the new technologies
require complete, millimeter-accurate surface models. With the licensed person responsible for this information, it must
now be of sufficient quality to be used in machine control technology.
According to Smith, if the engineer demands a waiver to turn over the information being requested, thereby
absolving himself of the liability, then the contractor needs to have a licensed professional engineer or land surveyor on
staff who can be in responsible charge. Smith continues that his board is expecting that engineering and surveying
firms will respond to the call and increase their use of technology, train their staff in the use of software to increase their
staff’s skill sets, use their software more effectively and produce this needed information. If they don’t, they are apt to
run the risk of providing an insufficient product or, at the least, place their reputations in question with the developers
who stand to save or lose a lot of money as a direct result of their response to this issue.
Figure 5-13. Comments from professional surveyor has expressed this phenomenon in a trade
publication (see Harry, 2007)
SURVEY RESULTS
Tables 5-1 through Table 5-8 summarize key outcomes from the legal issues survey outcomes.
51

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 5-1. At What Contract Stage Should EED be Exchanged?

Survey Question: If public works agencies elect to share EED with contractors, WHEN, in your opinion,
should the exchange occur?

With the Bidding documents (A) 16 13%
With the Contract documents (B) 1 1%
After contract is executed and pre-construction meeting has occurred (C) 8 7%
Other* 1 1%
No answer 32 26%
Non-completed 63 52%
*Other: Contract, Preconstruction and Design Reviews
Table 5-2. At What Contract Stage is EED Exchanged?

Survey Question: If your agency shares EED with contractors, WHEN does the exchange occur?

Other 7 6%
No answer 33 27%
The project investigators developed a separate, specific survey questionnaire to gain information
about the perceived legal issues surrounding AMG. Only 12 people responded and only one respondent
was an attorney (who did not provide identification or contact information).
The most pertinent piece of information gained from the survey was in response to the question,
“Are you aware of any legal issues regarding 3D design or the sharing of EED in general?” One
respondent provided this answer:
“An administrative ruling by the PE and PLS licensing board requires [professional
engineer/professional land surveyor] PE/PLS to build the 3D model. This is being challenged. Essentially,
if the design is complete, then building the model is a CAD technician function that does not involve
design decisions.”
Additional questions about legal issues associated with the filing of claims and the sharing of
EED were included in the survey questionnaires for contractors, agency design, and agency
procurement/construction functions.
In response to the question, “Has your agency been involved in any ‘claims for equitable
adjustment’ or arbitration associated with shared electronic design and/or DTMs?” only three responses
answered affirmative out of 304 total respondents to the three questionnaires (or two of 57 answering yes
or no to the question). These responses are shown in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. Respondents Reporting Claims or Arbitration Related to AMG
Contractor Agency Designer Agency P/C

Answer No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Yes (Y) 2 1% 1 2% 0 0%
No (N) 21 18% 12 18% 21 17%
No answer 48 41% 15 23% 37 31%
Non-completed 47 40% 37 57% 63 52%
52

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 5-4 reveals that agencies feel more exposure to liability because of sharing EED than
contractors feel they should.
Table 5-4. Contractor and Agency Opinions of Liability Exposure with EED Exchange
Sharing EED with contractors exposes agencies to liability. Contractor Agency P/C
Strongly Agree 0 1
Agree 4 15
Disagree 20 17
No Opinion 3 2
No Answer 44 23
Non-Completed 47 63
Table 5-5 reveals that a majority of both contractor and agency respondents who answered the
question strongly agree that the sharing of EED contributes to a culture of cooperation between the
stakeholders.
Table 5-5. Contractor and Agency Opinions of Sharing EED and Cooperation
Sharing EED with contributes to
cooperation between owner-contractor. Contractor Agency P/C
Strongly Agree 16 5
Agree 9 31
Disagree 1 0
No Opinion 1 3
No Answer 44 19
Non-Completed 47 63
Agencies that share EED with contractors reported liability waivers as the most common
protection from contractor-created models used in AMG that is derived from agency design files.
Agency procurement and construction personnel were asked if they shared EED with contractors.
Respondents were almost evenly split between yes (25) and no (27) answers. The survey questionnaire
delivered different follow-up questions based upon this yes/no question (See Table 5-6 and Table 5-7).
53

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 5-6. How Agencies Not Sharing EED Should Limit Liability
Survey Question: If public works agencies elect to share EED with contractors to efficiently deliver
projects and project quality, how should the agency’s liability (for errors in the DTM) be limited?

Not an issue if there is no sharing (A) 0 0%
Liability Waiver included as part of the contract documents (B) 19 16%
Not Sure (C) 4 3%
Other* 3 3%
No answer 32 26%
*Other: It would seem this would be the same liability associated with the rest of the project design. Most states
have the "paper plans rule in case of a conflict" specification. For the first few years of "implementing" this
technology, this is OK. However, after a specified period of time, the public works needs to produce electronic
plans that take precedence over paper. Since a consultant should develop the data, their errors and omissions
insurance should cover any errors, similar to other data used in the construction of a project.
Table 5-7. How Agencies Currently Sharing EED Limit Liability

Survey Question: If your agency shares EED with contractors to efficiently deliver projects and project
quality, how is the agency’s liability (for errors in the EED) limited?

Agency chooses not to limit its liability (C) 1 1%
Not Sure (D) 4 3%
Other* 5 4%
No answer 36 30%
*Other: We provide the electronic documents for their use. They must convert the data to a useable form for
their equipment and software and we are not responsible for the accuracy of the data. Pilot projects, we work
closely with contractor and data to deal with issues and limit risk exposure. Agency responsibility defined in
standard specs. Liability Waiver provided when data requested. Data provided on request only. Liability waiver
is executed upon request/delivery of the EED.
Agency Designer Perspective
Agency personnel responding to the Designer survey were clearly more concerned with implied
design warranty issues and the manipulation of their design data for the creation of models for AMG.
This concern is expressed in responses shown in Table 5-8.
54

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 5-8. Agency Designers Concern with Liability from Sharing EED
Survey Question: Is your design unit concerned about liability (for design errors) which may be incurred
with sharing design files with the contractor?

No (A) 1 2%
No-we require liability waivers to be signed by the contractor before use. (B) 5 8%
Yes (C) 10 15%
Other* 1 1%
No answer 11 17%
*Other: Disclaimer states that paper still rules.
LEGAL RESEARCH
Literature Review
The research team attempted to identify and report the major legal issues encountered in the
Phase I research of the project. The level of detail regarding legal study of AMG process and
implementation is quite large. Other legal issues certainly could be explored. These were some of the
additional legal issues that came up through the review of literature and contact with experts:
• Radio spectrum use

• Details of tort liability
• Sovereign immunity
A minimal amount of information was discovered about collective bargaining issues. The
research team learned that several unions are offering training in AMG and a Davis-Bacon wage and
determination was discovered in New London, Connecticut for a Group 3 Power Equipment Operator
classified as Grader Operator; Bulldozer Fine Grade (slopes. shaping, laser or GPS, etc.).
Legal Survey
The Legal survey was offered to 75 of 125 identified state license boards. The licensing boards
were identified and a contact e-mail address was obtained either by phoning the organization or from their
website.
Text String Searches
Research was performed in part by using Internet search engines, such as Google Scholar, Google
Custom Search-State DOT, and LexusNexis Legal online database. The searches were initiated by
creating sets of keywords to concatenate into text strings, which were then pasted into the browser search
field. Required connectors between the words differed in the legal database search engine, but a sample
string concatenated in a spreadsheet is shown in Table 5-9.
55

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 5-9. Search Engine Text String Generation

Sample String: Liability Waiver + Construction + Contracts + Public Works + Enforceability
Topic Discipline Subject Keyword Keyword

Liability 1 Law 1 Contracts 1 Public Works 1 Enforceability
Waiver
2 Construction 2 Intellectual property 2 DOT 2 Sharing
3 Transportation 3 Spearin 3 Electronic 3
Data
4 Engineering 4 Design 4 Digital Data 4
5 5 Surveying 5 5
6 Highway Departments
Once a significant quantity of literature was obtained from the text string keywords, the strings
became less significant as a resource, because the discovered literature typically provided either
additional references to explore and/or provided new search keywords from the documents themselves.
TRB Legal Committees
The Contract Law Committee (AL030) and Transportation Law Committee (AL010) meetings
were attended at the TRB Annual Meeting in Washington D.C. in January 2010. The committees were
briefed on the subject matter of NCHRP 10-77 and encouraged to participate in the Legal survey, which
was yet to launch. The committees suggested that a precedent in TRB is to request additional funding for
legal research on existing TRB research projects.
SUMMARY OF LEGAL ASPECTS OF AMG DATA
• The use of AMG technology in construction contracting has created changes in business
work processes and contract delivery processes, affecting all the contract stakeholders. Some
legal mechanism is needed to bridge the implied design warranty concerns (Spearin doctrine)
and the ability to include EED as part of the contract documents. Currently, liability waivers
and clauses are performing this function, in part, but it is yet to be tested in the courts,
according to our research.
• The work process changes, resulting in functional role changes, have proceeded faster than
the regulatory and legal systems have accommodated. A standard definition of professional
roles is needed across all the state license boards, which would help to define the “responsible
charge” of the various professional stakeholders. Perhaps after this project, NCHRP could
make recommendations to the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying
(NCEES) for their Model Law document (NCEES, 2009, which is intended to “be used as a
reference work in the preparation of amendments to existing legislation or in the preparation
of new proposed laws. The intent of NCEES in preparing this document is to present to the
jurisdictions a sound and realistic guide that will provide greater uniformity of qualifications
for licensure, to raise these qualifications to a higher level of accomplishment, and to simplify
the interstate licensure of engineers and surveyors.”
• Defining professional roles will also require a standardized definition of EED, including what
it is not to be used for. The Proposal for Use of EED in Construction created in 2008 by a
joint AGC/DOT subcommittee does not address professional roles or duties, nor does it
address contractual context. From the AGC document, EED is defined as, “In the civil
segment of the construction industry, a three-dimensional representation (surface model) of
what is to be constructed. Includes all types of capital project related engineering data which
56

NCHRP Project 10-77
is used for defining, developing, designing, documenting, spatially locating, constructing, and
historical recording.”
• The good news, according to our project surveys, is that despite the legal hurdles, those with
AMG experience perceive that it improves the spirit of cooperation between the contract
stakeholders, through improved constructability communications. The project surveys have
also indicated that the perception of liability regarding the exchange of EED is quite low.
57

NCHRP Project 10-77
CHAPTER 6: AMG EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Educational and training programs are necessary for stakeholders to maintain productivity and
accuracy on AMG projects. Knowledge development and experience with 3D modeling and project
control points is an especially critical need.
Education and training is provided by various sources; however, no one source provides all the
preparation necessary for AMG. A considerable number of self-paced online opportunities are available,
especially for learning about 3D design and data preparation software. Meanwhile, hands on, instructor-
led opportunities predominate for equipment operation and using positioning hardware. Educational
institutions are beginning to include AMG in their curriculums; however, educational goals are more
general and focused on awareness than developing specific capabilities. Therefore, each AMG
stakeholder must continue to train personnel as new members are incorporated into AMG teams.
THE IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR AMG
Investments in education and training are critical during the adoption of a recent technology.
Because the technology is emerging, few people are proficient in using the technology. Lack of
proficiency can frustrate employees as they attempt to increase the project productivity and improve
quality. If trained employees are not available in the workplace, new workers will not have more
experienced co-workers or supervisors to provide guidance and on-the-job training. A project that has not
provided results due to a lack of training can stigmatize an innovative technology, such as AMG, and
delay its implementation.
Education and training increases productivity and increases the quality of the work product. It
also tends to boost morale, because training outwardly demonstrates that the employer is making an
investment in the employee. Employees who have received the benefit of training can spread the benefit
of their training by leading on-the-job training efforts for coworkers. For these reasons, employers find
that training provides a desirable outcome.
Evidence exists to reinforce the need for AMG training:
• Training was tied for second place as the most prominent issue and opportunity discussed in the
initial workshop for this project. Data took first place and the tie was with the topic of
standardization.
• Regarding accuracy and error avoidance, training or training-related issues were rated with the
highest importance by respondents of the survey for this research project. Training for 3D
modeling and calibration were rated especially high (see Table 4-8).
Several AMG stakeholders have realized the importance of training and “stepped up to the plate”
to provide a variety of offerings. The following sections of this chapter describe the training providers
and their offerings.
58

NCHRP Project 10-77
AMG EDUCATION AND TRAINING DELIVERY METHODS
Various delivery methods are available for AMG training.
• Instructor led training in an offsite classroom. Offsite classroom training allows trainees to
extricate themselves from workplace distractions and meet fellow trainees from other
organizations, possibly giving them the opportunity to network in the future for mutual support
when challenges arise. Many trainees find it motivational to learn in a group setting. Travel to the
classroom location can be a perk or a disadvantage, depending on the trainee’s personal or
professional situation. Offsite classes can allow one or two people from an organization to be
taught by an expert, who would be unaffordable if the expert were required to travel to present to
a very small group.
• Instructor led training in an onsite classroom. Onsite classroom training allows an organization
to avoid travel and meeting expenses associated with offsite learning, while retaining the
advantages of learning in a group setting. If an organization can provide funding and adequate
employee attendance for an onsite class, it is usually possible to have the provider customize the
content and make the training especially relevant to a recent project or job for a nominal cost. The
distractions of the workplace and the expense of instructor travel can be disadvantages.
• Instructor led online classes. Online classes eliminate the need for either students or instructors to
travel to the classroom site. Some aspects of group efficiency and motivation may persist for the
virtual group; however, the group is not physically together, so some of this advantage of
networking and one-on-one discussion is likely to be lost.
• Asynchronous online training classes. Such classes usually require students to learn from videos
that are posted on the Internet. The videos operate in a manner like that of videos in a news,
sports, or social networking website. This delivery method allows both students and instructors
considerable flexibility as to time and place. Asynchronous online training classes can be
especially effective for situations where students need to learn at their own pace. Computer
software learning is a good example of this. A student learning from an asynchronous class may
stop the recording at any time, while they can take as much time as necessary to experiment and
perform an example problem offered by the instructor. Parts of the recording can be replayed, if
the learner has gaps in understanding on the first time through. However, some of the motivation
of working in a group will disappear and the instructor will not be available to immediately
answer questions. Asynchronous training classes are a less-structured method of learning, so
trainees who require structure to succeed may be less successful with asynchronous learning than
with synchronous learning.
• Computer-based tutorials. These can be like asynchronous online classes, except that participants
experience less interaction with a human instructor. In its most basic implementation, computer-
based tutorials may be little more than a series of PowerPoint slides, with instructions for the
learner and occasional questions that must be answered. This method has the advantages of low
cost and flexibility. It has the disadvantages of lacking structure and group motivation and not
having the instructor available to answer questions.
• Paper-based tutorials. These are lower technology versions of computer-based tutorials. Trainees
can easily scan ahead in the tutorial and skip to the segments of greatest interest, thereby saving
time. Disadvantages are like those of asynchronous online classes and computer-based tutorials.
Advantages are that the paper-based training material can be utilized when applying the concepts
learned in class to work project and referred to as needed.
59

NCHRP Project 10-77
• Books, pamphlets, and other literature. Written material provides maximum flexibility and
minimum structure. Books, pamphlets, and other literature can be used on a standalone basis or
combined with the previously-mentioned methods.
The structure of the industry that supports AMG has considerable influence on where trainees
will find training opportunities. The next sections describe that situation.
SOURCES OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR AMG
No one entity is responsible for all phases of an AMG project, neither in terms of providing
equipment, hardware, and software, nor for accepting complete responsibility for the work products.
Similarly, no one entity will be offered complete, detailed training for all phases of AMG. Therefore, it is
the responsibility of the learner to select the optimal method of training products from the proper source.
The selection of the training source depends on the familiarity of the trainee with various aspects of
AMG, their job role, and the phase of the project.
One general training course that provides a high-level training was identified. The National
Highway Institute (NHI) offers a one-hour, web-based, asynchronous, GPS technology course, which
provides an overview and introduction of the technology and explains some advantages and challenges
associated with AMG.
Surveying and Positioning Hardware
Surveying and positioning hardware vendors dominate in providing training for the initial
surveying and data collection phases, as well as the data prep (for construction), construction, and QA/QC
phases of an AMG project. Three predominant surveying and positioning equipment manufacturers are
involved in AMG: Leica Geosystems, Topcon Corp., and Trimble Navigation Limited. Further training is
provided by dealers and third parties. Often construction equipment dealers are also dealers of the
construction positioning solutions of one of the hardware manufacturers; therefore, they become heavily
involved in training for positioning, data preparation, and QA/QC.
Surveying and positioning hardware manufacturers offer training opportunities that span a wide
range of delivery methods. However, hands on, one-on-one instructor-led offerings dominate, because
trainee interaction and experience with the hardware enables successful training and instructor-led
delivery facilitates such interaction. Two surveying and positioning equipment dealers responded to this
research project’s survey. Their offerings generally covered the same range as the hardware
manufacturers; however, a higher percentage of their training opportunities are instructor-led.
A wide range of training sources could be found on the Leica, Topcon, and Trimble websites.
Leica Geosystems provides training library and video tutorials for their products. Their online database
contains webinars, user manuals, FAQ’s space, and other sources of technical support. Topcon offers the
“Topcon Technology Roadshow”, for which their representatives present in an instructional environment
with a Q&A session that follows. “Topcon University TotalCare”, is intended to provide comprehensive
training and support for their products through a variety of online resources. An online discussion board
is also available that is intended to provide responses for company instructors. Certifications would be
awarded after completion of the program. Similar for Trimble, a variety of resources are available such as
webinar, training library, paper/video tutorials, user manuals and courses offered by certified trainers, in
addition to other resources.
Construction equipment manufacturers also have an influence regarding training for data
preparation, construction, and QA/QC. How training is provided depends on the equipment manufacturer.
For example, some construction equipment manufacturers have a policy of delegating customer
interactions to dealers as much as possible. Direct training from the equipment manufacturer is mostly
reserved for dealership personnel and is held at one of their hands-on training locations, where trainees
can both operate equipment and learn in the classroom. After training with the equipment manufacturer,
60

NCHRP Project 10-77
dealership personnel are expected to train customers. This structure enables the equipment dealer to be the
one-stop shop for support of the equipment and technology for the customers.
In contrast, although dealers are involved with some customer training at Gomaco Corporation.,
this concrete paver equipment manufacturer has more direct training interactions with customers. Each
winter season, Gomaco University has a series of week-long training sessions at its Ida Grove, Iowa
training facility. Operation and maintenance of its paving machines are emphasized and AMG topics are
covered as a part of this training.
Milton CAT, which is a Caterpillar dealership, responded to our survey. They indicated that,
among others, they have an online introductory course on AMG.
Three of the co-authors of this report have had extensive experience with the Zeigler, Inc. training
program. It covers all aspects of AMG data prep, construction, and QA/QC. Some 3D road modeling
using Trimble’s TerraModel is included. An updated course list was displayed on the Ziegler, Inc.
website in 2014. (http://www.zieglercat.com/construction/service/technical-support-training/technology-
training-courses/ accessed December 22, 2014). Most of the training is classroom-based and instructor-
led; however, recently some online offerings have been developed. In addition to formal training, Zeigler
Inc. offers technical help via an 800 number and will send service technicians and trainers out to jobsites
to help contractors overcome acute challenges.
Local chapters of the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) provide another source
of AMG training. Four such programs were examined under this research effort. The offerings were
instructor-led, hands-on classes involving machine operation and quality control.
Table 6.1 lists the AMG offerings that were discussed in this section of the report.
The survey that was conducted as part of this research project indicated that training for
positioning hardware and machines was equally split between internal training and hardware vendor
training. Third parties and consultants made up the rest, which ranged from 11% to 14%.
Modeling Software
Two 3D modeling software developers dominate the 3D modeling market for highway projects:
Bentley Systems, Inc., which offers MicroStation, GEOPAK and InRoads, and AutoDesk, Inc., which
offers AutoCAD Civil 3D, Infrastructure Design Suite and InfraWorks. Both companies provide direct
customer training and coordinate and encourage training by resellers and third parties.
All three of the major surveying equipment manufacturers provide software that has extensive 3D
modeling capabilities, which is mostly incidental to a contractor or surveyor’s data prep and data transfer
needs, but can be extended to cover some design tasks
Although some model development can be accomplished in the programs supplied by hardware
manufacturers, most government agencies and consultants use Bentley or Autodesk software for their 3D
model development efforts. Like the hardware vendors, the software developers provide training using the
complete range of delivery methods. However, asynchronous online classes and various tutorials and user
guides have greater availability with software rather than hardware. This is likely because self-paced
learning is more effective for software. In addition, it is apparent that some of the knowledge acquisition
and training occurs within the context of virtual users’ groups that are facilitated and encouraged by the
software developers.
A full complement of online training is available. Onsite training direct from the software
company is available for large clients such as state DOTs. Possibly onsite training is also available for
smaller clients by resellers. A third software developer, Carlson Software Inc. has created a software suite
that covers the entire range of AMG project phases, from initial surveying to final quality assurance. In
developing the software, it has attempted to be impartial regarding the three primary positioning hardware
platforms and the two primary 3D modeling software platforms. Therefore, it provides training for all
phases of an AMG on a project that uses any type of AMG hardware or software. It also provides training
through resellers and third parties in a manner like that of Bentley and Autodesk.
Table 6-2 lists the AMG offerings that were discussed in this section on the report.
Calculations based on the survey that was conducted as part of this research project indicated that
61

NCHRP Project 10-77
slightly more than half of the respondent’s design engineers have been trained in 3D modeling. This
indicated that at the time of the survey considerable training was still required to develop existing 2D
modelers into 3D modelers. In addition, more training will be required to train new personnel that are
replacing retirees and others who have left their employers, as well as those hired to meet the increased
demand for modelers and AMG technology utilization.
Table 6-1. Educational and Training Provided by Software Developers.

Phase of Project Delivery method
Online synchronous (instructor or group pace)
Books, pamphlets and other literature

Construction Machinery Operations
Online asynchronous (Self-Paced)

Computer Based Tutorials
Design and 3D Modeling
Paper based tutorials

Classroom or onsite
Initial Surveying
Data Prep
General
QA/QC
Provider*
Carlson1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Bentley2 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Auto Desk3 ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
*Title = several, Type of Provider = software developer

1
www.carlsonsw.com/; 2http://www.bentley.com/en-US/; 3http://usa.autodesk.com/
62

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 6-2. Educational and Training provided by hardware and equipment manufacturers and
related organizations
Online asynchronous (self-paced)
Books, pamphlets, and other


Online synchronous
Classroom or onsite
Initial Surveying
Data Prep
General
QA/QC
Provider Title Type of Provider
Leica1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Hardware
Top Con2 Manufacturer ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Several
Trimble3
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Gomaco
Equipment
University4 ■ ■ ■ ■
Manufacturer
Introduction to
Construction ■ ■ ■ ■
Layout
SCS900 Field
Associated Software with
Professionals Trimble ■ ■ ■
Inc. Universal Total
(Nashville, Station
TN; Elgin, IL; 1-2 Trimble
Kansas City, Certified ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
MO)5 Training
Trimble
GCS900
■ ■
Operator
Software Hardware Dealer
GPS Basic
Operator ■ ■ ■
Training
GPS Advanced
Sitech of Operator ■ ■
Indiana6 Training
Basic Machine
Control ■ ■ ■ ■
Troubleshooting
Basic GPS
■
Grade Staking
Several
Advanced ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Courses
63

NCHRP Project 10-77
Online asynchronous (self-paced)


Online synchronous
Classroom or onsite
Initial Surveying
Data Prep
General
QA/QC
Provider Title Type of Provider
Milton CAT
(MA, ME,
Equipment Dealer ■ ■
NH, NY &
VT)7
Ziegler (MN Equipment and

Several ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
& IA)8 Hardware Dealer
Local 49
Training
■ ■ ■ ■
Center (MN,
ND, SD)9
Local 103
Apprenticeship GPS 110-610
■ ■
& Training
Trade Union
(IN)10
Local 324
■ ■ ■ ■
JATF (MI)11
Local 139
Advanced
Training ■ ■ ■ ■
Grade
Center (WI)12
Brian Van Many Data Prep
■ ■
Pelt13 Possibilities Professional
Notes: 1www.leica-geosystems.us/en/index.htm; 2www.topconpositioning.com; 3www.trimble.com;
4
http://www.gomaco.com/resources/university/gomacouhome.html; 5www.apisurvey.com; 6www.sitechindiana.com;
7
www.miltoncat.com/pages/default.aspx; 8www.zieglercat.com; 9www.local49training.org;
10
www.iuoe103training.org/home.asp; 11https://www.benesysinc.com/benefit/oe324jatf.asp;
12
www.woetrainingcenter.org/INDEX.html; 13http://www.3dsurfacesolutions.com/6101.html
AMG in Educational Institutions
Educational institutions can also assist with the implementation of AMG by including it as a topic
in their curricula. Construction-related, four-year educational programs are accredited by two different
organizations: ABET, Inc. for engineering and technology programs, and the American Council for
Construction Education (ACCE) for all other construction-related programs.
Survey responses were requested from programs with each accreditation by sending requests to
two list serves that covered each program type. The ABET program request went out through the ASCE
Construction Institute Construction Research Council list serve, while the request for the ACCE-
accredited schools went out through the Associated Schools of Construction list serve. Five usable
responses were received. In addition, the authors provided information from their own institutions in
64

NCHRP Project 10-77
making the foregoing analysis.

Based on the usable responses, when AMG is included in a construction curriculum, it is included
in classes on surveying, construction means and methods, geotechnical engineering or construction.
Typically, one or two lectures from each course might be devoted to the topic. To the authors’
knowledge, the only available post-secondary courses that are completely devoted to automatic machine
guidance are Civil Engineering (CE) 594 E and CE 594 F at ISU. These serve as graduate-level and
senior-elective courses. 594E (one credit) provides an overview of the AMG process, while 594F (2
credits) includes more hands-on learning for data prep and quality control (QC) surveying. Both classes
are instructor-led classes, offered both online and onsite.
During the expert contact group workshop for this project, one participant commented that it is
almost impossible for an educational institution to provide a course in a recently-developed field, such as
AMG. Indeed, ISU’s experience confirms the assertion of the workshop participant. CE 594 E and F are
taught as seminars, where the faculty member acts as a course coordinator to develop the learning
objectives, syllabus, and assessment plan. Meanwhile, industry speakers (primarily from industry who are
experienced users such as Ziegler CAT or Trimble) provide the course content. Like other institutions,
ISU covers AMG in their undergraduate construction equipment and surveying courses, with one or two
lectures specifically devoted to the topic. For these presentations, guest lecturers from industry and
industrial videos provide much of the content.
The above findings fit with educational technology awareness, rather than a training mission.
Training is more focused on providing the trainee with a skill that is immediately useful in the workplace.
Therefore, the emphasis will be more on how to manipulate a certain piece of hardware or software by
providing information on product-specific settings and procedures. Educational programs attempt to
develop a foundation of knowledge and attitudes that a student can use for a career, with the expectation
that further training, both on-the-job and in classrooms, will later provide specific job-specific capability.
AMG training will be a continuing need, especially as the topic achieves greater penetration in
industry and post-secondary educational institutions. Table 5.3 lists the AMG offerings that were
discussed in this section on the report.
EDUCATIONAL AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY
Good educational and training programs will be necessary for stakeholders to maintain
productivity and accuracy on AMG projects. An especially critical need exists for preparation on 3D
modeling and project control points. Education and training is provided by several various sources;
however, no one source provides all the training necessary for AMG implementation. A considerable
number of self-paced online opportunities are available, especially for learning about software.
Meanwhile, hands-on, instructor-led opportunities predominate for equipment operation and using
positioning hardware. Educational institutions are beginning to include AMG in their curriculums;
however, educational goals are more general and focused on awareness and training is focused on
execution. Therefore, AMG stakeholders must continue to train personnel to provide a solid foundation to
existing and new members on their AMG teams.
65

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 6-3. Offerings from Educational Institutions
Online asynchronous (Self-Paced)


Online synchronous
Classroom or onsite
Initial Surveying
Data Prep
General
QA/QC
Type of
Provider Title Provider
CMGT 330 Principles of
California State University
Soil Mechanics and ■ ■ ■
Chico1
Foundations*
CE 111 Fundamentals of
■
Surveying*
CE 453 Highway Design* ■ ■
CE 594 E Project Controls ■ ■

CE 594 F Computer
ISU2 Applications for Project ■ ■
Controls
Con E 322 Construction
Equipment and Heavy ■
Construction Methods*
GPS Automatic Grade
■
Control Overview University/
College
IDM 427 Construction
Missouri State University ■ ■ ■ ■
Equipment Management*
CM CET 537 Construction
Pittsburgh State University4 ■ ■ ■
Survey I*
BCM 212 Construction
■ ■ ■
Purdue University Building Layout*
Technology Program5 BCM 412 Field
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Engineering*
ConE 221 Geometric
■ ■ ■ ■
University of Nebraska at Control Systems*
Lincoln6 CNST 242 Construction
■ ■ ■ ■
Equipment and Methods II*
University of Wisconsin, Training on Automated
■ ■ ■ ■
Madison (CFIRE)7 Machine Guidance
Federal
National Highway Institute8 TCCC GPS Technology ■ ■
Government
Notes: *Part of the class (one or more class periods) is devoted to Automatic Machine Guidance Topics
1
http://cm.csuchico.edu/; 2http://www.public.iastate.edu/~catalog/ ; http://www.ede.iastate.edu/ ;
http://www.ede.iastate.edu/Non-Credit/Non-Credit/prodev.html; 3http://www.missouristate.edu/;
4
www.pittstate.edu/department/construction/course-detail.dot?id=110064;
5
www.tech.purdue.edu/bcm/academics/undergraduate/bcm_course_catalog.cfm; 6http://bulletin.unl.edu/courses/CONE/2210;
7
http://rip.trb.org/browse/dproject.asp?n=24932; 8www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/home.aspx;
66

NCHRP Project 10-77
CHAPTER 7: BEST PRACTICES FOR AMG DESIGN MODEL

DEVELOPMENT
THE IMPORTANCE OF 3D MODELING
When a project is constructed using AMG, construction machines compare the position of ground
engaging tools against an electronic three-dimensional (3D) model that resides in a computer on the
machine. Even when best practices are implemented, calibrating the construction equipment and
performing QA/QC checks will not compensate for problems with the electronic 3D model. Therefore,
these models are central to the success of AMG.
Development of high-quality 3D models is a challenge, as the software must be highly capable
and considerable training is required. Additionally, a wide range of experts from various disciplines
(including surveying, route design, and hydraulics) must contribute to produce a usable model. Because
of this required collaboration, good modeling demands communication, teamwork, and patience.
Although the challenges are considerable, the payoff is great. Good 3D models do more than
control the implements on construction machines. Coordination sessions in which team members view the
model in 3D give greater understanding to the project within the context of its surroundings.
Public input sessions can help a facilitator align stakeholder expectations by allowing them to
view a “flythrough” or virtualization of the model, complete with simulated traffic movements. Land
acquisition negotiations can be less adversarial because the prospective seller will better understand the
project impact. A contractor can review virtual construction projects and raise issues before equipment is
mobilized and the expense of making a change is compounded later.
Contractors can also use the model to compute partial payment quantities and monitor onsite
equipment productivity. Finally, the contractor can become a member of the modeling team by converting
the design model into an as-built model and possibly adding spatially referenced QC data. The as-built
model can be used for operation, maintenance, and future construction projects.
INITIAL PLANNING FOR MODELING
Philosophy of Building a BIM-Type 3D Model
With proper planning, 3D models can serve as a database repository for complete project
information over the life of the entire project. Building information systems, as used in the vertical
construction industry, are an example of this. The result is a 3D model that is a graphical user interface
for the project, which can also be sorted and queried like a database (Burgess 2010; Bernstein 2012).
This same philosophy could be brought to transportation projects. Under such a system, all
project participants cooperate to build the model, adding relevant data and information in a way that is
spatially associated with the 3D model.
In early project stages, the surveyors could contribute by inputting control points, the
preconstruction DTM, and positioning information for selected preconstruction features. Design modelers
can then add route alignments and proposed surfaces that can be categorized by the types of material they
represent. When construction materials are identified in the 3D models, their quantities can be
automatically collected as the project is designed. That way, the owner’s estimate of quantities can be
quickly developed when the design is complete.
At various points during the design phase, input from other stakeholders can be contributed by
developing and sharing visually-rich 3D renderings and animations, which provide context to the design
and proposed construction process. After the design model is completed, the constructor can document as-
built elevations and indicate the location and results of QC tests. The owner’s representative can
contribute the location and results of quality assurance tests and indicate the date that progress payments
were made for items of work, also noting if any retainage is withheld.
67

NCHRP Project 10-77
The model can then be turned over to the facilities operation group, which can use the model for
asset management purposes, such as recording maintenance activities, facility conditions, and
performance information. The model can also be used for recording accident events and as a basis for the
next capital improvement in the future life cycle.
Achieving such functionality requires many technological and cultural changes, which aren’t
likely to be realized in the near term. However, in the interim, improvements can be achieved by using the
model, as previously described, as much as is currently possible.
For example, rather than giving position information in an American Standard Code for
Information Interchange (ASCII) electronic text file, surveyors can build (and often do) the
preconstruction DTM and locate selected features (Burgess, 2010). Surveyors would have the opportunity
to check their work by reviewing the 3D model, before it is turned over to the design team.
On the construction side, rather than having the owner provide a 2D plan set, the 3D model might
be turned over to the contractor, with the expectation that it will be detailed and enhanced to the point that
it can exported for use in machine control and QC activities. The enhanced model could then be shared
back to the owner to allow review and to facilitate quality assurance (QA) activities.
All project stakeholders benefit for several reasons:
• Time and accuracy are lost with each data transfer, so such a process eliminates the need for
data transfers.
• To achieve project success, training creates a critical mass of users who (1) are familiar with
the modeling software, and (2) collaborate on the project so they can provide mutual support
in learning the software modeling application(s) and training inexperienced users.
• 3D modeling programs tend to have a relatively large base of users; therefore, training
programs tend to be well-developed and frequently updated with improved functionality and
software code fixes.
Software developers have taken steps to facilitate such integration by ensuring that their 3D
modeling software can transfer files directly to the surveying and positioning hardware provided by all
three of the major manufacturers: Leica Geosystems, Topcon Corp., and Trimble Navigation Limited.
Overall Spatial Control
An important part of the planning process is to decide how to provide overall spatial control for
the project. It is often desirable to begin the project with the required level of control for final
construction. Accuracy requirements for final construction are shown in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1. Required Accuracy for Modeling (Taylor, 2010)
Design Component Horizontal Vertical

Roadway 0.04 ft 0.01 ft
Ditch 0.1 ft 0.05 ft
Note that, to be reasonably assured of achieving accuracy during construction, the model must be
built to a greater level of accuracy than specified in the table. This is because some loss of accuracy will
inevitably occur (in processes downstream from earlier model development) and the modeler must make
reasonable allowances for these losses of accuracy.
Geodetic or Cartesian
Given casual thought, and global thinking, most people would assume that the zero sea level
elevation for surveying measurement would follow a sphere. It follows a shape called a geoid, which
68

NCHRP Project 10-77
adjusts for changes in gravity on a global basis. However, modelers assume that their project is on a
Cartesian coordinate system, where there is an x and y axis (eastings and northings), which describe a
plane upon which the project is designed. In one mile, the plane departs in elevation from an assumed
spherical surface by approximately 8 in. Therefore, it is obvious that a transformation solution will be
required to map the Cartesian design coordinates to a set of spherical or geodetic coordinates for
elevation. In these cases, geodetic surveying must be used to set the control points for the project and the
model must be calibrated to those points before it is used for field activities during construction (See
Appendix A).
Another important consideration is whether to tie project control surveying to the appropriate
state plane coordinate system. Such a coordinate system provides a method to assign northings and
eastings that are consistent with those assigned to other projects within the coordinate system area. It
would be possible to build a small project that has coordinates that emanate from an arbitrary (0,0), at the
southwest corner of the project. However, in this case, the project model cannot be fit into a larger 3D
model that might represent the entire road network for half a state since it uses a local, project specific
coordinate system. If the model is to be retained for asset and operations management purposes, as well as
future construction in the same area, the model should be tied to the state plane coordinate system that is
in place in the area (See Appendix A).
Models should be linked to the positioning coordinate system that is used for geographical
information system (GIS) databases within the jurisdiction. Since asset management systems often use
GIS databases, such coordination facilitates the use of the 3D model for asset management purposes after
the construction project is built.
Data Transfer (Inputs and Outputs)
Another planning consideration for 3D modeling is deciding how and when data will be
transferred into and out of the model (Taylor, 2010). The amount of data that needs to be transferred in
and out of various software programs depends on several factors. If all team members, including
construction personnel, build and modify the model cooperatively, the amount of data transfer in and out
of the model will be greatly reduced. However, preconstruction topography and feature location data will
have to be transferred from the surveying equipment into the model and the model will then have to be
converted into a format that can be read by the construction machinery that implements AMG, as well as
the surveying equipment that performs QA/QC checks.
The results of the survey conducted for this project indicate that 75% of agency modelers obtain
surveying information from their surveyors as 3D DTMs. These results also show that about half of the
contractors who use AMG receive EED from the transportation agency. The other half are starting from
scratch to build a DTM using only 2D plans.
When a contractor receives only 2D drawings from the owner, extensive data preparation effort is
required, as the contractor must essentially reproduce the 3D model that the designer developed on behalf
of the transportation facility owner. This adds considerable effort to the required workflow (See Figure 7-
1).
69

NCHRP Project 10-77
DOT/Government Contractor
Contractor
Agency Uses 3D
Completes 3D Model for
3D Model Provided
Electronic AMG
Design
Pavement Design
3D Model
Road Design
Requirements Structural Design
Completed
(size, location, Agency
and
ESALs, etc.) Prepares 2D 2D Drawings
Surveying Contracting
& Prioritization Plan Drawings
Mechanism
Contractor
Site Conditions Creates 3D
Model for
Agency AMG
Prepares 2D 2D Drawings
Plan Drawings
Figure 7-1. 2D vs. 3D Data Transfer
Contractors reported (through their survey) a wide range of costs for DTM development: from
$150 to $2,500 per lane mile; also, $750 per acre was mentioned.
In some cases, contracting agencies provide contractors with electronic versions of 2D plans,
which can save time in their model development effort. However, the amount of time required for the
contractor to do the conversion using this resource can also vary considerably. In some cases, contour
lines are intelligent objects that have assigned elevations and are continuous throughout the project. In
other cases, the contour lines are merely linework, without intelligence. Sometimes microscopic gaps and
overlaps can exist in the contour lines that will create difficulties in the DTM. If such conditions exist, the
contractor must manually assign elevations to the contour lines and tediously repair gaps and overlaps
using the modeling software application(s).
If data preparation is required, a contractor has a choice of performing the work in-house or
contracting it out. Contractors who choose to retain modeling work in-house have more control over the
work; and, the person doing the work is likely to be more integrated into the contractor’s workflow.
However, the contractor must help this person to maintain their expertise as the software and hardware
applications change and improve. If the designated modeler has never performed data prep work before,
the learning curve (gaining expertise to produce models for AMG implementation) is considerable. This
is especially difficult if full-time roles cannot be devoted to data prep efforts (Burgess, 2010).
Data preparation work can also be outsourced. Although the contractor loses some schedule
control to an outside organization, the outsourcing employees usually specialize in data preparation work
and do it full time; so, they have a higher level of familiarity and recent experience and are not subject to
slow start ups as they climb the learning curve (Burgess, 2010).
Contactors are more likely to outsource data preparation if they don’t have enough modeling
work to support a dedicated functional role. However, if a contractor can keep a person occupied with
data preparation almost full-time, it will likely be more cost effective to keep the work in-house.
Selection of Technology for Spatial Data Collection for Existing Terrain and Features
Data for existing terrain and features can be collected using the same surveying techniques that
are used for traditional 2D design, such as traditional optical surveying, robotic total stations, and
photogrammetric methods. GPS rovers can also be used, especially to obtain existing topography. LIDAR
is a mobile scanning laser system that is also becoming more popular, and it can be an effective method to
obtain building height data, as built geometry for existing bridges, clearance heights (for power lines and
bridges) and topography for landslide areas. Height data for buildings might be especially important if the
70

NCHRP Project 10-77
buildings are to be included in a 3D model to provide context for conceptual design reviews and public
presentations.
The 2010 survey results for this project indicated that the photogrammetric topographical
collection method was the most prevalent for transportation agencies, followed by RTK GPS and total
station surveying; as of the completion of this writing (2017), the order of prevalence may have changed
Some jurisdictions have already collected information and stored it in GIS data bases. Data of
possible interest to the 3D modeler include locations for features and DEMs. In some cases, this
information may be used without conducting a separate data collection effort. However, checking the
accuracy of this georeferencing to make sure it meets the needs of the project is important (Hixson 2010).
One challenge for a quick change over to AMG construction is that sometimes survey crews work
several months or even years in advance when they collect preconstruction data. If survey data was
collected using a centerline and cross section approach it will not have sufficient density to make it
suitable for AMG construction. The data that has been collected using methods that don’t meet the needs
for AMG construction have to be “flushed” out of the system, before AMG can be used. It is difficult to
tell whether preconstruction DTMs are developed with data that was properly collected. It is also possible
to develop a DTM from a centerline and cross-section survey. Although it may appear to be suitable for a
3D model that will be used for AMG, difficulties may arise when construction begins, especially in the
areas where new surface data meets the preconstruction surface (centerline and cross-sectioned) (See
Appendix A).
Consider Tradeoffs
Tradeoffs between model accuracy and size need to be considered, especially if 3D models will
be used for visualization when a high level of realism is required. High-accuracy models required for
paving aren’t usually required, for example, for visualization in a public meeting. However, if the model
is intended for construction, high accuracy is required.
Since visualization is often necessary early in the project to obtain stakeholder buy in, it is
tempting to use lower-quality positioning information to expedite the development of the 3D model.
However, such an action can result in regrets, because it is difficult to retrofit a model with good 3D
positioning coordinates after it’s been started without them.
It is usually better to start out with the level of accuracy needed for the entire project, even though
a larger investment of effort is required up front. An alternative to this dilemma, if a 3D visualization is
needed quickly, at the start of the project, is to develop a separate model using software that helps
expedite the development of a model primarily for visualization, rather than for construction-level
accuracy. As an example, the Iowa DOT develops 3D visualization models for context-sensitive bridges
using SketchUp. A typical project requires only one week of a staff member’s time to develop 3D
electronic models for stakeholder presentations.
One advantage of 3D modeling is that the design team and other experts within the agency can
review the design in 3D at typical milestones in the design development process, such as 10%, 35%, and
90%. In some cases, the process is more effective if a visually-rich model provides context to the
proposed project and its surroundings. Furthermore, the review process can be enhanced by making
changes on the fly to the foundational elements of the design, such as alignment and grade of the primary
route, and allowing the group to look at the results in 3D and come to agreement on the best alternative.
For example, a 3D model that has AMG-level accuracy could be processed into a format that
allows a review team to witness a virtual-reality simulation, where team members can decide where to
“drive” within the model during the meeting. Based on the virtual drive-through, they may consider five
alternative alignments for the main lines, change the model appropriately for each alternative, and then
save the result. At the end of the session, an alternative is selected as the preferred design.
It should be noted that if contextually rich visualizations will be an important part of an agency’s
modeling process, careful thought must be invested in the selection of hardware and software and in
making plans for interoperability and replacement (Hixson, 2010).
71

NCHRP Project 10-77
GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPING MODELS
The actual development of a 3D design model is a multi-step process and the process is
summarized Figure 6-2, based on information from Taylor (2010). The steps can vary depending on the
agency and the modeling software that is utilized. It can be expected that workflow will change as
software applications are improved and modified. Some of the steps described below may be merged with
other steps, or become unnecessary, as software capabilities increase. Also, some steps may require
several iterations as alternatives are explored and adjustments are made.
Figure 7-2. Flowchart for 3D Model Development Procedure
72

NCHRP Project 10-77
Reference CAD Standards
At the beginning of the modeling process, reference should be made to the computer aided design
standards for the agency. Layering protocols are usually included in such design standards. Layers allow
designers to separate various design elements, so they can be dealt with independently, and so they can be
turned “on” and “off,” when the model is viewed. Such separation avoids visual clutter and allows team
members to focus on their assignment, while being aware of the larger context of the project and the
activities of teammates. Burgess (2010) listed the following as typical CAD layer titles
• Finished surface
• Drainage
• Earthwork (Corridor)
• Alignment
• Parcel Map
• Original surface
In some cases, it can be desirable to separately track each layer of material in a pavement system.
When this is done, separate quantities can be accumulated for each material and a contractor can use the
electronic surface to provide grade control for each material without having to offset from the finished
elevation. If such a scheme is used, the layering can also include:
• Each subgrade and base layer

• Undercuts
Standard layer protocol facilitates the shared use of the model. (See Appendix A).
Add Horizontal and Vertical Alignments
A review of the DTM is completed and strategies are developed to add horizontal and vertical
alignments. In some cases, multiple alternative alignments are proposed and analyzed with the goal of
selecting the best one for the project.
Create Typical Sections from Templates
Typical sections and templates provide a cross sectional view of the alignment that is
perpendicular to the centerline. In this step, they are selected and applied to the route alignments. The
location of these elements when viewed in plan is called a pattern line. While vertical and horizontal
curves are rendered as actual curves on the main survey lines, they are rendered as chords on the proposed
surface between pattern lines. Therefore, the density of pattern lines is an important consideration for
ensuring sufficient accuracy. Pattern lines are usually laid out at regular intervals and at important
locations, such as the beginnings and ends of curves, superelevations, intersections, and widening and
narrowing transitions. Guidelines for pattern line= spacing on designs intended for AMG use are provided
in Table 7-2. Note that these guidelines may need to be modified depending on the location of the model.
Further densification may be necessary near intersections and other non-typical parts of the alignment.
Inflection points on neighboring templates should be connected to break lines to ensure that the inflection
is rendered appropriately in the 3D model.
A formula driven method is also available to determine the minimum data density required (or
maximum line segment length) to accurately portray the curves (both horizontal curves and equal-tangent
vertical curves) within the surface model. Three approaches are introduced in Vonderohe and Hollister’s
paper (2013). One approach is “priori” which calculates maximum data density required based on design
speed. The second approach is using operator in a design software application so that the data density
varies along the segment depending on each individual curve’s parameters. The third approach is pure
73

NCHRP Project 10-77
parametric approach which is open to changes for the future AASHTO recommended values of
“maximum allowable side friction factor, driver reaction time, braking deceleration, driver eye height,
object height, headlight height, and inclination angle of top of headlight beam” (Vonderohe and Hollister
2013). The equations under each approach are given for calculating maximum line segment length of
three types of curves (horizontal curves, crest vertical curves, and sag vertical curves).
Table 7-2. Recommended Pattern Line Spacing (Taylor, 2010)

Pattern Line Horizontal Curve Vertical K
Spacing Radius Value
10 ft ≥ 300 ft and tangents ≥ 13 and tangents
5 ft 75 ft < 300 ft 6 < 13
2 ft < 75 ft <6
Generate Design Surface Model
After the templates have been associated with the various route profile lines, the modeling
software can generate a design surface model.
Check Design Surface
The design team should now check the design surface for errors by visualizing it in 3D. If
adjustments are necessary, considerable time can be saved when using advanced software with intelligent
objects. For example, if an adjustment must be made to the profile grade, intelligent cross-sections will
move with the profile grade and adjust themselves to fit into the new circumstance. This prevents the
modeler from having to go back and adjust each cross-section separately (Burgess, 2010).
Merge Design Surface and Preconstruction Surface
When the design and existing surfaces are merged, the limits of earthmoving can be determined,
as well as proposed virtual slope stake locations. In reviewing this aspect of the model, attention should
be paid to the location of break lines at the transitions from cut to fill.
Conduct Necessary Manual Design in Complicated Areas
Some manual design may be necessary at complicated locations, such as intersections, special
ditches, and culvert entrances and exits. The efforts required for such designs will depend on the
intelligence of the modeling objects, as well as the complexity of the situation. As software becomes more
capable, less effort will be required. The amount of manual design may depend partly on agency policy
about where designing ends and detailing begins. Communicating to the contractor about which areas are
not fully modeled is desirable, because it will allow the contractor to plan for the necessity and cost of
detailing these areas (Taylor, 2010).
Perform Constructability Review
A final check for errors and constructability should finally be conducted. The results of the
survey for this research project indicated that such efforts in checking are a worthwhile investment; a
clear majority of the agency respondents report that such checks expose design errors before construction.
In addition, extra staff time should be planned for this activity, as survey respondents reported that 3D
design reviews take longer than 2D design reviews.
74

NCHRP Project 10-77
Generate Final Files
After the constructability review is complete and adjustments have been made, a process will
have to be executed so that the model is designated as the final design model. In some cases, this may
require the application of the digital signature of the designer of record. However, in many cases, a
process will be executed to extract 2D plan, profile, cross section and detail views, so the intent of the
model can be represented by a traditional 2D plan set. In such a case, the designer of record can sign the
2D plan set, either in hard copy or electronically.
3D MODEL SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Three dimensional designs of transportation facilities for AMG require special considerations. An
upfront understanding of the required degree of accuracy and precision is required for an efficient process
Too little accuracy renders the model useless for AMG and will cause a contractor to have to repeat the
modeling effort originally undertaken by the designers or to give up on AMG and go back to traditional
construction methods.
In general, in comparison to traditional construction, more pattern lines will be required to
support AMG, because the machinery will require exact instructions on how to grade at the tops of cut,
toes of slopes, cut to fill transitions, and any changes in the route’s curvature, superelevation, or width.
When AMG is in use, the operator will not be able to “eye in” the alignment of such features, as they
could when the job was laid out with traditional stakes. In some cases, a designer may not completely
detail complicated areas with the expectation that the contractor will consult standard drawings or other
sources to provide the necessary remaining detail. If this is done, such areas should be clearly designated.
As software applications become more capable, this practice is expected to diminish.
Modeling techniques that facilitate AMG can also facilitate the design and resurfacing, restoring
and rehabilitation (3R) projects. New data collection techniques allow designers to measure the elevation
and alignment of surfaces that are to be rehabilitated with greater efficiency and accuracy compared to
past systems. With this information, the design for the new surface could be developed to provide a
predetermined elevation and alignment that will fit the existing surfaces and improve the ride quality.
Then accurate estimates for material needs could be developed a priori, if changes do not occur to the
original surface between the times that the data is collected and when construction occurs.
When the model is being transferred to the contractor for final detailing during the data
preparation process, the original designer normally remains the engineer of record if any design changes
should be requested by the contractor and executed by the designer. Often, a set of 2D plans is extracted
from the 3D model and serve as the record document. As a courtesy, the agency can grant the contractor
access to the 3D model, so it can be detailed within the intent of the design and converted into machine
control files. Usually a waiver is signed by the contractor to acknowledge that the 3D model is provided
for information only and is not the legal record of the design.
Other jurisdictions have developed schemes to seal and save a record electronic copy of the 3D
model that constitutes the design that was supervised by a professional engineer. Comparisons can be
made between the record copy and the subsequent detailed models to detect what was part of the original
design and what detail and formatting was added for machine control use.
In many cases, contractors have had to develop complete 3D models from paper plans, because
the issues could not be resolved. As experience is being gained, protocols for transferring an electronic
3D model to the contractor for detailing have been developed that have resolved many of these issues.
The survey that was conducted for this project provided some insight into current practices. Of
agency procurement respondents that exchange EED with contractors, about half reported that primary
responsibility for creation of the DTM is with the agency and the other half indicated the responsibility is
with the contractor. However, a clear majority of the agency procurement respondents reported that the
owner’s warranty for constructible plans is for 2D “stamped” drawings only.
After the design “intent” has been communicated, contractors often must develop or create further
details to build a project. Those details are communicated to the owner and designer in the form of shop
75

NCHRP Project 10-77
drawings. The shop drawings are examined by the agency or the designer and returned, noting any
exceptions taken by the reviewer. When the contractor has finished constructing the facility, as-built
drawings are provided showing exactly how the contractor fulfilled the design intent.
Corollary submissions could be expected of contractors who during the data preparation phase,
have developed a detailed version of the 3D model. By reviewing the contractor’s model, agency
personnel would gain knowledge about what is important for contractors to have for 3D models and
provide feedback about possible deviations from design intent involving the existing and proposed
surfaces. In some cases, the changes that the contractor proposes or inconsistencies noticed could require
revision of catch points and tie-ins. The contractor’s model would have further usefulness in facilitating
inspections. In any case, it would be helpful for the agency to have a copy of the 3D model that the
contractor personnel are using to facilitate QA activities.
However, the survey responses for this investigation from agency procurement personnel
indicated a clear majority of field inspectors do not have access to the DTMs. As of this writing, a
standard nationwide protocol for handling such interactions has not been developed. However, the survey
for this project also showed that more than half of the responding contractors currently share their as-built
version of the model back to the agency. One of the coauthors knows of at least one contractor who
electronically compares the contracting agency’s model with their model and notifies the contracting
agency of any inconsistencies that the contractor cannot resolve.
As mentioned before, the model developed by or on behalf of the agency needs to be checked
during the design process. Compared to non-AMG modeling, additional time should be allowed for
QA/QC 3D model checks when AMG construction is contemplated. More checks will have to be made
between pattern lines to ensure that the chorded approximation between pattern lines does not diverge too
much from the curvilinear expectation. Attention should be paid to possible discontinuities in the
surfaces. Often, such discontinuities are obvious, because they show up as tall spikes or deep holes in the
visualized 3D model. However, care should be taken during the review process, because the signs that
such an issue might exist may be subtler than that which was just mentioned. QA/QC for 3D modeling
that will be used for AMG is another area for which national standards do not exist; and, it would be
desirable to develop such standards.
For an agency, if implementation of AMG requires a switch from 2D to 3D modeling,
considerable adjustment of workflow and expectations will be necessary. However, considerable benefit
will follow in terms of fewer design errors, due to better visualization, better stakeholder understanding of
the project, greater efficiency, and less cost of construction, rework, and/or redesigns. Vonderohe et al.
(2010) provides an example of how Wisconsin DOT planned to switch from 2D to 3D modeling; this
description might be helpful to agencies who are planning such a change.
Some questions that will eventually have to be answered are as follows: At what level of
development should designer and stakeholder reviews of 3D models take place? Should one review be at
35% design development? If 35% is the right level of development, what are the characteristics of a
model that is at 35% design development, so that designers and managers can recognize that the time for
the review has arrived? (Manore et al., 2010).
CONTRACTOR USE OF 3D MODELING
According to the survey for this project, on D-B-B projects, if a contractor receives an electronic
3D model from the agency, the most likely time for this to occur is at, or close to, the preconstruction
meeting. However, based on comments received from the survey, it appears that in the future, most
agencies are planning to provide the model at the pre-bid stage of projects.
When 3D models are shared with contractors by agencies, a clear majority share the models that
were used to develop the contract documents on an “as-is” basis. Usually no enhancements for AMG are
provided. The most common data formats for this exchange are .dtm, followed by .tin, followed by .ttm
(in that order, descending). If only parts of the model are shared, the route alignment data is most often
provided.
After a contractor receives a 3D model from an agency or designer, the effort that is required to
76

NCHRP Project 10-77
perform data preparation tasks and to create machine guidance files from the model will vary greatly
depending on what data is provided and the contractor’s resources. In general, most contractors start the
process by reviewing the 3D model and finding out which layers are relevant to their needs. Usually a
contractor will want to have DTMs of the original and proposed surfaces. If a DTM is available for each
layer of the proposed surface, such as top of subgrade, top of base, and others, the contractor may select
layers for those surfaces also.
Also, a linework file that shows the configuration of the transportation facility that is being built
will be helpful. The DTMs will be used to define the proposed surface for the contractor’s modeling
effort. The difference between the existing and proposed surfaces provides an estimate of volume. The
linework file will be used to provide context on computer displays for the machine operators and other
personnel, regarding existing and proposed facilities. For example, it might be most efficient for a
machine to operate parallel with a curb line. In that case the operator can find the curb line in the
machine’s computer monitor and then follow it by operating the machine so that the virtual machine in
the monitor runs parallel to the curb line.
After the proper layers are selected, the contractor will likely delete all other layers to limit
computer memory requirements and reduce the possibility of visual confusion or working on the wrong
layer. At this point, the contractor will examine the model in 3D—to size up the project and look for
discontinuities. After this step, the contractor will add detail and make corrections where necessary. Then,
the file will be converted into machine control format and distributed to the machinery and QA/QC
positioning devices.
The most time-consuming circumstance is when only plan, profile, and cross-sectional views of
the facility are available. In this case, the contractor will have to develop the DTM completely from
scratch; however, unlike the designer, the contractor will not be required to generate alternatives and
select from the best one. Instead, the contractor can focus on reproducing the selected design.
Time can be saved if electronic versions of the alignment, profile, and cross-sections are
available. These base components can then be assembled into a new model. The results of the survey for
this project indicate that half of the 3D models that contractors use are developed from “scratch” from 2D
plans. However, in discussions with contractors and consulting modelers who are engaged by contractors,
the authors have noted that some modelers prefer to start the construction model from scratch and later
compare the construction model to the design model to detect errors. It was asserted that an experienced
modeler could develop a model from scratch for a modest additional cost in comparison to enhancing a
designer developed model. The advantage of being able to compare the designer developed model with
the constructor developed model to detect errors was considered to justify the additional cost.
For their purposes in 3D modeling, contractors often use the 3D modeling software that is
provided by the manufacturer of their positioning hardware. Although this software may not be as capable
and flexible as the software that the designers use, it has the advantages of being quicker to learn (by
having less capability, there are fewer menu options to learn), lower cost, and coming with technical
support available from an entity that is very motivated to satisfy the contractor (to sell more hardware).
One of the export options is to generate a machine control file. Executing that option is the final modeling
step for the contractor before construction starts.
When 3D models for AMG are in use, plan changes can be a considerable challenge. If the record
set of plans is a paper version, agency personnel could issue a plan change and the contractor would be
responsible for making necessary revisions to their model. Even, if the agency does make revisions of its
version of the 3D model, the contractor would have to make changes to its version, because it is likely
that the contractor has made several enhancements to the model that was developed by the agency. From
the survey for this project, about half of the respondents indicated that the agency took the lead in
modeling the changes half of the time and that the contractor took the lead the other half of the time.
Anytime changes to the model are necessary, the contractor will have an issue with version
control. This can be especially challenging if the project is in a remote location and physical data storage
devices (such as memory sticks or secure digital memory cards) must be placed in the machines.
Positioning hardware manufacturers have developed wireless data exchange capabilities between
construction machines and central servers that can considerably ease the effort of version control.
77

NCHRP Project 10-77
Within construction contracting organizations, the creation, development, and maintenance of the
models are tasked equally between estimator functional roles, dedicated modeling specialists, and
outsourced consultants. After contractor personnel have developed a 3D model, they can use it for their
own purposes. The survey for this project indicates that 72% of contractors use 3D models for estimating
quantities and/or developing the means and methods for earthwork construction tasks. In addition to the
above uses, contractors who use 3D models and AMG have better control over elevations and material
placement. This lessens the need to plan for intentional overruns to ensure that minimum thickness
tolerances are met. The result is a savings of 3 to 6% in material volume (www.transportation.org quoted
by Burges, 2010). Also, the 3D model can be the basis for as-built plans. Data collection can be facilitated
by operating construction equipment and other vehicles that have positioning equipment over final
grades. Thus, the contractor QC personnel can easily obtain positions and elevations of as-built features.
SUMMARY OF DATA TRANSFER METHODS
A review of this process makes it clear that data must be transferred from one entity to another
several times. The results of the workshop that was conducted for Phase I of this project indicated that
data transfer was the greatest challenge and biggest opportunity for AMG.
According to the survey that was conducted that was conducted in 2010 for this project, there was
no predominant file type being used by AMG users (See Figure 7-3). The. dgn and. tin file types
accounted for more than half the activity in the design model and contract document creation processes.
For mapping the original terrain model, .dtm files were more predominant. For contractors, the AMG
process could use any of the eight possible formats, with none being predominant.
The LandXML format was developed to be agnostic regarding choices of software and hardware
platforms and thus enhance interoperability; it was used less than 10% of the time, except in contract
document creation. The diversity of file formats demonstrated here represented a challenge in developing
robust file transfer protocols that are required for efficient use of AMG.
Figure 7-3. File Types of EED Exchanged Across AMG Functions
Interestingly, at the date of the survey (2010) hardware and software vendors seemed to have a
78

NCHRP Project 10-77
different view of data transfer according to the survey results for this project. About half of them
responded that their products were capable of data exchange via LandXML and they ranked that
methodology as the most important. LandXML was reported as one of the most prevalent import/export
file formats by the software and hardware vendors, along with .dwg, .dgn, and .dxf file formats. The
vendors expressed that their software import/export capabilities were equally driven by owner and
contractor needs, requirements, and demands.
DESIGN MODEL DEVELOPMENT BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY
• Success in 3D site modeling is central to the success of AMG.

• Changing from 2D to 3D modeling comes with many important challenges in a variety of
aspects, including training, workflow alteration, and clarifications or adjustments in
professional practice. Two years of training and staged implementation may be required to
completely switch from 2D to 3D design (Hixson, 2010; Vonderohe et al., 2010). A design
team would have to complete three 3D projects before it reaches the returns of its accustomed
level of productivity (using 2D methods). Early reports indicated that productivity would
never exceed that of 2D modeling (Hixson, 2010). However, the product provided by the
design team would be vastly improved (Hixson, 2010). Later experience in Wisconsin and
Iowa indicate that productivity is eventually increased using 3D Modeling (FHWA 2013)
• Changing from 2D to 3D modeling comes with important benefits, including better
communication and error checking with internal and external stakeholders, less effort re-
entering data from one phase of design and construction to the next, greater efficiency in
construction, and site efficiency benefits, such as allowing the contractor to use the 3D model
for cost estimating, development of means and methods, and for productivity tracking. Other
incidental benefits include using the 3D model framework for as-built, QA and QC records,
and after the project is completed, using it for maintenance and operational information
storage, such as locations and dates of maintenance activities and crash-incident analysis.
• Decisions regarding how data is transferred from one part of the AMG process to another are
important. Having all stakeholders cooperatively build and modify the 3D model would
provide a seamless method of data transfer. However, such a practice raises important
questions regarding design responsibility and the division between activities that must be
performed under the supervision of a licensed individual and those that can be performed
without such supervision. For example, if more than one licensed individual supervises the
modeling effort, communication will be required to clarify which person has responsibility in
each specific area.
• For a contractor, the most important layers of a 3D model are the existing and proposed
surfaces and line work for the proposed facility. Considerable contractor effort can be saved
by giving them access to the 3D models developed by designers. However, legal and
professional issues often restrict contractors from gaining such access. Contractors often
detail areas that are hard to model. Changes that occur to the model after construction begins
can be a challenge to incorporate into the construction version of the 3D model.
• At the time this survey was conducted (2010) for this investigation, a predominant format for
data transfer has not emerged. Greater understanding between designers and constructors
regarding constructor needs with regarding to file transfer would be desirable.
AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY
There is a need to develop standards for all parts of the modeling process to ensure that all
participants in the design and construction of transportation facilities can efficiently deliver a product
with confidence, knowing that it will suit the needs of subsequent users. The standards should include the
following:
79

NCHRP Project 10-77
• Overall site control

- Geodetic
- State plane coordinate referencing
- Local control
• Separate standards for various surfaces and elements that require various levels of accuracy
(such as earthwork finishing versus paving versus storm sewer construction)
• Horizontal and vertical accuracy
• Measurement and calculation densities
- Data collection gird sizes
- Use of break lines
- Pattern line densities
• Completeness of design modeling effort
- Definition of designing versus detailing
- Methods for delineating parts of the model that the contractor will complete
• When reviews are required
- During design
- During machine control model preparation
- Protocol for executing reviews
• QA/QC
- Timing, type, and density of measurement
- Protocol for review and documentation
• Design changes and corrections during construction
- Designer versus contractor responsibility
- Review process
• Construction closeout
- Accuracy and density of as-built measurements
- Modeling standards for documenting as-built locations
- Inclusion of QA/QC data
• Turnover of model for archiving and use for maintenance and operation
80

NCHRP Project 10-77
CHAPTER 8: IMPACT OF AMG ON EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
BACKGROUND
Proper use of digital information for AMG will likely result in less confusion and more accuracy
than traditional methods of earthwork pay item quantification and payment. Earthwork pay quantification
from AMG must include mechanisms that all parties to the contract (both the agency-owner and the
contractor) can trust.
The efficient use of digital information in AMG applications typically involves creation of a
DTM in the planning functional area, which is then passed to the design functional area for creation of a
separate 3D model. This facilitates efficient computation and measurement of earthwork quantities for use
in the procurement functional area (bidding). Finally, the construction functional area is concerned with
verification of project as-built quantities.
The two primary areas of implementation to address are processes that are either internal to
transportation agencies or external. Internal issues will be found as the design is transferred between the
planning, design, procurement, and construction functional areas to leverage these modern technologies
for improved efficiencies in project delivery. External issues lie with agencies passing the digital data
(along with conventional paper drawings) to the construction contractor for building the AMG project and
mutually agreed upon quantification of earthwork pay item quantities in unit price contracts.
Hannon and Sulbaran (2008) found that the technology behind AMG is maturing, but, from an
application standpoint exists in “information silos,” or with gaps between the agency functional areas.
Hannon and Sulbaran state:
Besides software application interoperability in general, the primary gap in the realization of
TIM delivery, according to our case studies, is that currently the methodology begins to atrophy during
and after the construction (project) lifecycle stage. That is to say, we found no evidence of a TIM model
being utilized beyond the Procurement lifecycle stage. This phenomenon was reinforced by the literature
review pertaining to BIM project delivery. In none of our findings did we find extensions of the data in the
successive project lifecycle stages or functional areas. The exception is Florida DOT which utilizes
datasets in file structures burned onto CD-ROMs throughout all of the lifecycle stages, but this is not the
true TIM paradigm.
SURVEY RESPONSES AND PREVIOUS CASE STUDIES
Survey Responses on the Use of DTMs for Estimation
Figure 8-1 presents responses from contractors on survey questions pertaining to their use of
DTMs for estimating, collection of earthwork quantities, and payment. These responses indicate that most
of the responding contractors use DTMs for estimating quantities, means and methods, constructability,
quantity of the progress of work, and payment.
81

NCHRP Project 10-77
30 60
Question: Do contractors utilize DTMs Question: Do contractors utilize DTMs
25 for estimating? 50 for collection of earthwork quantities?
Frequency 20 40
Frequency
15 30
10 20
5 10
0 0
s)
y)
er
o
er
er
o
d
ds
N
Ye
e
e
lit
th
sw
th
et
iti
ho
O
ab
pl
nt
An
et
om
ct
ua
o
ru
(Q
C
N
d
st
an
ot
on
s
Ye
N
ns
(C
ea
s
Ye
(M
s
Ye
60
Question: Do contractors utilize DTMs
50 for payment?
40 Note: Some respondents specifically answered

Frequency
as "No Answer" whereas respondents who did

not have a response and skipped the question
30 entirely were marked as "Not completed".
20
10
0
er
er
o
s
ed
Ye
sw
th
et
O
pl
An
om
o
C
N
ot
N
Figure 8-1. Survey Responses by Contractors on the Use of DTMs
Impact of AMG on Productivity Gain and Cost Savings
Figure 8-2 presents responses from contractors and vendors on the impact of AMG on
productivity gain and project cost savings. Most of the equipment vendors indicated potential productivity
gain of about 40% and potential cost savings of about 25 to 40% using AMG. On the other hand, most of
the contractors indicated potential productivity gain of about 10 to 25% and potential cost savings of
about 10 to 25% using AMG.
Productivity gain and cost savings reported in the literature on earthwork construction projects
using AMG is also presented in Figure 8-2 (Jonasson et al., 2002; Aðalsteinsson, 2008; Forrestel, 2007;
Higgins, 2009; Caterpillar, 2006).
Jonasson et al. (2002) reported productivity gain and cost savings information for a fine grading
project using Caterpillar 140 H motorgrader with different position measurement technologies (i.e.,
ultrasonic, 2D and 3D lasers, and GPS). The productivity gain ranged from about 20 to 100% and cost
savings ranged from about 15 to 40%, depending on the position measurement technology used. The cost
savings were due to a reduction in surveying support and grade checking, an increase in operational
efficiency, and a decrease in number of passes. The Jonasson study indicated that the 3D laser systems
required a direct line of sight to the equipment while the GPS systems did not. This resulted in a minor
increase in fleet productivity and a decrease in unit cost using GPS guidance systems over 3D laser
systems.
82

NCHRP Project 10-77
12
3D Laser1/
GPS1 (89 to
10 Ultrasonic1 GPS6 2D Laser1 101%)
GPS2 GPS4 GPS3

8 GPS5
Frequency
Contractors (107%)
6 Vendors
GPS7
(265%)
4
0
10 20 30 40 50 >50
Productivity Gain Using AMG (%)
Notes: 1Fine-grading using CAT 140H motor grader (Jonasson et al., 2002)
2
Trench excavation using CAT 330DL hydraulic excavator (Aðalsteinsson, 2008)
3
Earth moving and fine grading (general values; not project specific) (Forrestel, 2007)
4
Earth moving and fine grading project - Port of Brisbane (Higgins, 2009)
5
Bulk earth moving and subgrade fine grading using CAT D6N dozer (gain in the
number of passes; Caterpillar, 2006)
6
Bulk earth moving using CAT 330D excavator (Caterpillar, 2006)
7
Base course fine grading using CAT 140H motorgrader (gain the number of passes;
Caterpillar, 2006)
12
GPS5
GPS2 Ultrasonic1 2D Laser 1
3D Laser1 (68%)
10
GPS1
GPS4 GPS3
8
Frequency
Contractors
6 Vendors
0
10 20 30 40 50 >50
Cost Savings Using AMG (%)
1
Notes: Fine-grading using CAT 140H motor grader - Overall unit cost (Jonasson et al., 2002)
2
Earth moving and fine grading project - Port of Brisbane (overal cost savings) (Higgins, 2009)
3
Bulk earth moving using CAT 330D excavator - fuel cost savings (Caterpillar, 2006)
4
Bulk earth moving and fine grading using CAT D6N dozer - fuel cost savings (Caterpillar, 2006)
5
Fine grading using 140H motorgrader - fuel cost savings (Caterpillar, 2006)
Figure 8-2. Survey Responses by Contractors and Vendors and Productivity Gain and Potential
Cost Savings using AMG, and Data obtained from Field Case Studies (Source: Vennapusa et al.
2015; ©2015 Iowa State University; used with permission)
83

NCHRP Project 10-77
Aðalsteinsson (2008) reported results from a field demonstration project conducted using a CAT
330DL excavator to excavate a trench with 1650 cubic yards of sandy gravel material. The field study
involved comparing excavation productivity and cost differences between the conventional approach and
AMG approach. The AMG approach involved performing the excavation using a digital model loaded
into the on-board display software and GPS-based position measurement system on the 330DL excavator.
The AMG approach showed a productivity gain of about 25%.
Caterpillar (2006) reported results from a field demonstration project conducted in Spain by
constructing two 80 m identical roads: one road with AMG on construction equipment and the other with
similar equipment but using conventional methods and no AMG. A CAT 330D excavator and CAT D6N
dozer were used for bulk earth moving. The CAT D6N dozer was used for subgrade fine grading, and a
CAT 140H motor grader was used for subbase fine grading work. An overall productivity increase of
about 101%, fuel cost savings of about 43%, and increased consistencies in grade tolerances were
reported for this project. Productivity gain and fuel cost savings for earth moving and fine grading work
are shown separately in Figure 7.2.
The results from these field case studies and survey responses indicate that the productivity gain
and cost savings using AMG on earthwork projects can vary significantly (with productivity gains in the
range of 5% to 270% and cost savings in the range of 10% to 70%). This variation is most likely because
of various contributing factors, such as project conditions, materials, application, equipment used,
position measurement technologies used, and operator experience.
Cable et al. (2009) recently reported results from a portland cement concrete (PCC) paving
project in Iowa, where the stringless AMG approach was compared to the conventional string line
approach. Table 7-1 presents a summary of the pavement quality test results obtained from the project.
Table 8-1. Comparison of Traditional String Line Control and Stringless AMG Approaches for
PCC Paving (from Cable et al., 2009)
Property Approach Measurement
324.3 to 443.0 mm/km (20.6 to 26.8
Stringless
California profilograph index (CPI) in/mile)
String line 22.7 to 124 mm/km (1.44 to 7.86 in/mile)
Stringless Standard deviation = 0.43 in (11 mm)
Pavement thickness (edges)
String line Standard deviation = 0.67 in (17 mm)
Stringless Standard deviation = 0.28 in (7 mm)
Pavement thickness (center)
String line Standard deviation = 0.47 in (12 mm)
Pavement surface elevation deviation Stringless Average = -0.6 in (-15 mm)
from design (north edge) String line Average = -0.5 in (-12 mm)
Pavement surface elevation deviation Stringless Average = -0.4 ft (-9 mm)
from design (south edge) String line Average = -0.1 ft (-4 mm)
The pavement ride quality measurements (California profilograph index, CPI) indicated that the
ride quality is somewhat better using the conventional string line approach compared to the stringless
approach. Also, the conventional string line approach produced better surface elevation conformance to
design than the stringless approach. However, the standard deviations of the pavement thickness were
lower with the stringless approach than with the string line approach, which is an indication of better
thickness control/accuracy with the stringless approach.
While results from this project showed certain limitations with regards to the pavement ride
quality and deviations in the pavement surface elevations using the stringless approach, the lower
standard deviations of pavement thickness are certainly encouraging. Elevation data of the underlying
subbase layer and its contribution to the pavement ride quality or deviations in the surface elevations were
not studied. However, it appears that it is an important aspect and must be further investigated to properly
understand the impact of AMG on the overall quality, productivity, and cost for paving projects.
84

NCHRP Project 10-77
Galbraith (2009) reported cost savings of about $10,000 per production mile on a stringless PCC
paving project in North Carolina, where Gomaco PS2600 spreaders, controlled by RTK GPS, and a
Gomaco GHP 2800 slip form paver, controlled by robotic prisms, were used. The cost savings are
attributed to avoided stakeout costs (about $1,200 per day with 1500 linear ft per day production).
Cost Savings Model
One of the most significant benefits of using AMG for earthwork applications is the cost savings,
which is a result of:
• Gain in productivity,
• Material quantity savings (reduction in overages), and
• Reduction in survey crew time and efforts.
Calculations involved in determining costs involved in construction operations, material

quantities, and survey crew cost, on a typical subbase fine grading project, are provided below
(Schaufelberger, 1999).
Calculations
Productivity can be estimated following a conventional area estimate approach using equation 8-
1.
A× E
Productivity Area ( ft 2 / h) = (8-1)
CT × N
where A is the area graded per cycle (ft2) or length per cycle x average road way width, E is the
operational efficiency (min/h), CT is the cycle time (min) determined using equation 8-2,
and N is the number of passes required.
DF DT
CT = + (8-2)
VF VT
where DF is the distance the grader travels when moving forward (ft), VF is the average forward
speed of the grader (ft/min), DT is the distance the grader travels when turning (ft), and VT is the average
turning speed of the grader (ft/min).
Productivity in linear miles can be estimated using equation 8-3.
Productivity Area × W
Productivity LinearMiles (miles ) = (8-3)
5280
where W is the average road way width.
The cost of operation can be estimated using equation 7-4.
ProductionCost ($) = Productivity LinearMiles × Fleet cos t (8-4)
85

NCHRP Project 10-77
Survey crew cost can be estimated using equation 8-5.
SurveyCost($) = T × P × HourlyCost (8-5)
where T is the time (number of hours) required for stakeout and surveying work per mile, P is the
number of persons required, and Hourly Cost is the cost per person ($ per hour).
Material quantities can be estimated using equation 8-6.
L × W × H × γ × overage × UnitCost
MaterialCost ($) = (8-6)
2240
where L is the length of the project, W is the average roadway width, H is the thickness of the
subbase layer; γ is the unit weight of the material (pcf), overage is the extra material acquired, and unit
cost is the unit cost of material ($ per ton).
Assumptions
Following are the assumptions and values used in the calculations to estimate the overall cost
savings on a subbase fine grading project using AMG as a function of productivity gain (with reduction in
number of passes, N), and material savings (or reduction in material overage).
• Project length, L = 10 miles

• Average width of the road way, W = 40 ft
• Subbase layer thickness, H = 1 ft
• Grading distance per cycle, CF = 1000 ft
• Cycle time, CT (estimated based on 1000 ft grading distance at an average speed of 328
ft/min and 50 ft turning distance at an average speed of 328 ft/min) = 3.2 min
• Unit weight of the material, γ = 145 pcf
• Unit cost of the material = $12/ton
• Number of hours required for stake and surveying work per mile (for conventional method) =
30 hours
• Number of hours required for stake and surveying work per mile (conventional method), T =
30 hours
• Number of hours required for stake and surveying work per mile (AMG method), T = 5 hours
• Number of persons required for surveying work (conventional method), P = 3
• Number of persons required for surveying work (AMG method), P = 1
• Hourly cost of survey crew = $35/hour
• Fleet cost (conventional method) = $570.75/hour (Jonasson et al., 2002)
• Fleet cost (AMG method) = $694.35/hour (using GPS; Jonasson et al., 2002)
• Material overage reduction = overage using conventional method – overage using AMG
method
Estimated Cost Savings
Figure 8-3 shows the estimated cost savings using AMG over the conventional method, using the
formula and assumptions described above, as a function of productivity gain and material overage
86

NCHRP Project 10-77
reduction. The trends in these estimations indicate that the contribution of the material overage reduction
factor is significant, while the productivity gain is somewhat significant to the overall cost savings.
Overage Reductions
0.09 ft
10
0.08 ft
Percent Cost Savings (%)

8 0.06 ft
6 0.04 ft
4 0.02 ft
0.00 ft
2
$$ from reduced
survey crew
0 servcies
0 20 40 60 80 100
Productivity Gain (%)
Figure 8-3. Estimated Percent Cost Savings on a Subbase Fine Grading Project using AMG
EARTHWORK QUANTITY COMPUTATION AND MEASUREMENT
Accuracy of DTMs
Recommendations on best practices for development of DTMs are discussed in detail in Chapter
7. This section discusses the accuracy of DTMs as they are influenced by the number of data points and
the interpolation methods used because the accuracy of DTMs directly influences quantity estimations
and the AMG process.
Survey results, reported in Chapter 4, indicated that a majority (> 70%) of contractors,
software/hardware vendors, and agencies who responded believe that the number of elevation data points
used in creating the DTM is a principal factor in the accuracy of the DTM. Evaluating the accuracy of
DTMs by comparing them to the actual surface is a challenging and expensive task. Some previous
studies (such as Acharya et al., 2000 and Meneses et al., 2005) have attempted to evaluate the accuracy of
DTMs. Meneses et al. (2005) compared the actual and interpolated surface elevations and volume
characteristics using 5% to 100% point data densities. They concluded that the estimated volume
characteristics are sensitive to the point data density, while the height errors are not. For the terrain
features presented by Meneses, minimal increases in volume accuracies were noted with point densities
above 60%. Acharya et al. (2000) used digital photogrammetric methods with aerial triangulation
techniques to establish pass, tie, and check points, using known ground control points (established using
GPS). These methods provided high density data with less time consumption, compared to using just GPS
surveying methods, and with greater accuracy, compared to analog photogrammetric methods.
Various interpolation methods are available in the literature for generating contour grid data for
DTMs. A brief description of these commonly-used methods follows:
• Inverse distance to power
87

NCHRP Project 10-77
• Kriging
• Local polynomial
• Minimum curvature
• Nearest neighbor
• TIN
Inverse distance to power is a multivariate, weighted average interpolation method (Davis, 1986).
The weights are assigned such that the influence of one point relative to another declines with the distance
from a grid node. Weighting is assigned using a weighting power that controls how the weighting factors
drop off as distance from a grid node increases. As the power value increases, the grid node value
approaches the value of the nearest point.
Kriging is a robust interpolation method that uses the spatial features of the data to determine
weighting factors, through selection of an appropriate geostatistical semivariogram model (Cressie, 1990).
This procedure requires experience with geostatistical semivariogram modeling, but generally produces
results with comparatively better accuracy than other interpolation methods.
Local polynomial regression assigns values to grid nodes by using weighted least squares fit, with
data within the grid node search eclipse (Myers, 1990).
Minimum curvature uses an algorithm that assumes a smooth elastic-like membrane in
interpolating the surface. The interpolation is not considered exact, but is close to exact, and it generates a
surface with a curvature as small as possible. The algorithm follows a simple linear regression fit and the
extraction of residuals are then interpolated and added to the regression surface data. The process is quite
complex and involves an iterative procedure (Briggs, 1974). Nearest neighbor assigns the value of the
nearest point to each grid node. This method does not interpolate the data between the data points.
TIN produces a surface using a series of contiguous and non-overlapping triangles, constructed
using the known elevation data points (Lee and Schachter 1980). This method is most commonly used for
transportation applications. There are many algorithms for generating surfaces using the TIN method, and
one of the most commonly used algorithms is the Delaunay triangulation.
Figure 8-3 illustrates the influence of the number of data points and the type of interpolation
method on DTM accuracy using results from a data set obtained from a sloping terrain (shown in Figure
8-4). Figure 8-3 shows elevation data points obtained over an area of about 540 m2 (5810 ft2). To study
the influence of the number of data points, three different data sets, with 78, 38, and 11 data points, are
considered in the analysis. DTMs generated using the six different interpolation methods described above
are presented in Figure 8-5, 8-6, and 8-7 (for the 78, 38, and 11 data points, respectively).
88

NCHRP Project 10-77
(a) (b) (c)

280 280 280
270 270 270
260 260 260

Y (m)
250 250 250
240 240 240
230 230 230
220 220 220

2043 2046 2049 2043 2046 2049 2043 2046 2049
X (m) X (m) X (m)

2
Figure 8-4. Elevation Data points for Developing DTM over a 540 m Area: (a) 78 Data Points; (b)
38 Data Points; and (c) 11 Data Points
Figure 8-5. Picture of the Area with Elevation Data
89

NCHRP Project 10-77
Curvature; (e) Nearest Neighbor; (f) TIN
Curvature; (e) Nearest Neighbor; (f) TIN
90

NCHRP Project 10-77
Curvature; (e) Nearest Neighbor; (f) TIN (Source: Vennapusa et al. 2015; ©2015 Iowa State
University; used with permission.)
The accuracy of each DTM that used 78 data points was evaluated using a cross-validation
technique. This technique involved taking out a known data point from the data set, estimating the point
using the model, and comparing the estimated value with the actual one. This process was repeated for all
78 data points. An absolute mean error (calculated as the average of absolute value of the difference
between the actual and the estimate value) was then calculated for each interpolation method, as
summarized in Table 8-2.
Table 8-2. Absolute Mean Error of Estimated Elevation Data Based on Cross-Validation Process
using Different Interpolation Methods
Estimated Elevation
Data Interpolation Method Absolute Mean Error (mm)
Inverse distance to power 100
Kriging 20
Local polynomial 70
Minimum curvature 50
Nearest neighbor 40
TIN 30
For this data set, results indicated that the Kriging method is the most accurate method with 0.02
m (0.06 ft) absolute mean error. The TIN method showed a slightly higher absolute mean value of 0.03 m
(0.10 ft). The grid generated using the Kriging method with 78 data points was then considered as a
“true” representative surface, and it was used as a comparison to the grid data generated using the other
interpolation methods, as summarized in Table 7-3.
91

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 8-3. Absolute Mean Error of Estimated Elevation Data by Comparing Kriged DTM with 79
points with Different Interpolation Methods
Estimated Elevation
Absolute Mean Error (m)
Data Interpolation Method 79 Data Points 38 Data Points 11 Data Points
Inverse distance to power 0.06 0.10 0.11
Kriging 0.00 0.02 0.05
Local polynomial 0.06 0.07 0.07
Minimum curvature 0.03 0.04 0.09
Nearest neighbor 0.06 0.12 0.24
TIN 0.01 0.04 0.06
The Kriging method produced absolute mean error of 0.02 (0.06ft) using 38 data points and 0.05
m (0.16 ft) using 11 data points. The TIN method produced slightly higher absolute mean error values.
Minimum curvature, local polynomial, and inverse distance to power methods produced greater absolute
mean error values, compared to the TIN method. The nearest neighbor method could not replicate the
surface terrain, as it doesn’t interpolate the data, which is clearly a limitation of the method.
It is extremely important that existing surfaces are portrayed as accurately as possible, so the
model can be passed ahead to the design, estimation, bidding, and construction phases of the project with
high fidelity. A proper understanding of the factors that influence the accuracy of the DTM (as described
above and in Chapter 7) is important to understand and must be addressed during the model development
phase.
The limitations with these approaches, however, are the possibility of higher up-front costs for
more data collection, software, and highly-trained personnel, and the possible inability to make gut-level
checks for data collection errors. Some survey respondents reported the following costs involved with
DTM development (see Appendix D):
• $2,500/lane mile +/- $150 per lane mile

• $800-1,000 per mile, based on $80/hour bill rate +/- $150 per lane mile
• ± $750/lane mile and ± $50/acre
• Typically, 10 hours to set up a 10 acre
• Cost per runway (1.5 miles of project) varies from $10,000-$25,000, depending on
complexity
Computation of Earthwork Quantities
Earthwork quantities are traditionally computed using average-end-area method, which is based
on averaging the areas of two consecutive cross-sections and multiplying the average by the distance
between them (Burch, 2007). The total sum is calculated by adding the quantities determined from each
consecutive cross-section.
Using DTM, the surface-surface method can be used to compute quantities, by overlapping the
existing terrain and the design DTM surfaces. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2002) provides a
detailed explanation of the surface-surface quantity estimation method using TIN surfaces.
Many software applications (including Bentley and Autodesk) now have the capability to easily
compute quantities using the surface-surface method. The accuracy of the generated DTM, as described
above, plays a significant role in the estimated earthwork quantities. Another key factor that contributes to
the overall quantity estimation is the soil shrink-swell factors, which are dependent on the soil type, so
they must be selected appropriately (Burch, 2007).
Vanderohe et al. (2010) reported that differences between average-end-area and surface-surface
increases as the cross-section intervals increase, although the relationship is not linear. As the cross-
92

NCHRP Project 10-77
section intervals decrease, the computations become theoretically the same. The differences are observed
to be as great as 5% when 100 ft cross-section intervals are used with the average-end-area method. Such
differences can contribute to significant cost discrepancies for large projects.
The advantage of using DTMs is that earthwork quantities can be computed “on the fly,” as the
model is being developed, and during construction. Various layers and volumes that represent various bid
items and various costs can be collected and categorized during the design process. Designed surfaces are
accurately portrayed and can be passed ahead in the AMG process with high fidelity. The limitations,
though, include potentially higher up-front costs for software, hardware, and highly-trained personnel,
and the possible inability to make gut-level checks for some types of design errors. Downstream
personnel may be critical of design personnel for alternative designs that were not used and documented
in unused parts of the model. Designers may consider inspection of the details of the design process by
downstream personnel to be too invasive of their professional autonomy.
Model Enhancement for Construction Purposes
Model enhancement might be necessary during the development process for certain aspects, such
as providing offsets between pavements and subgrades, delineating areas where equipment operation is
excluded, and correcting inconsistencies that are not problematic for design models but are for AMG.
The benefits of this work phase are that the constructor may discover possible design
improvements or design errors in the model, which can end up saving time and money during
construction. The constructor may develop a better understanding of how to construct the project as the
design model is enhanced. The constructor could improve construction productivity and safety by adding
exclusion zones for equipment and methods to track equipment usage during construction.
The liabilities with this work phase are potentially higher up-front costs for equipment and
highly-trained personnel, the possible inability to make gut-level checks for design errors or construction
enhancement errors, and the possibility of passing undetected errors from the previous process to the next
one.
Model Conversion to QA/QC Format
QA/QC personnel can potentially use DTM and the final design model to automatically locate
test locations and display results. Elevations of existing surfaces can be obtained quickly and modeled in
3D to estimate current earthwork and pavement volumes or tonnages for partial payments. Quality
information is processed along with volume information to ensure that partial payments are made for
earthwork or pavement that meets quality requirements. However, liabilities, once again, are potentially
higher up-front costs and the possible inability to make gut-level checks for data collection errors. If a
proper data collection and documentation strategy is not developed, QA/QC personnel could also be
overwhelmed by data overload and data processing.
IMPACT ON EARTHWORKS SUMMARY
• Proper use of digital information for AMG will likely result in less confusion and more
accuracy than traditional methods of earthwork pay item quantification and payment.
Earthwork pay quantification from AMG must include mechanisms that all parties to the
contract (both the agency-owner and the contractor) can trust.
• Many software applications now have the capability to easily compute quantities using the
surface-surface method. The accuracy of the generated DTM plays a significant role in the
estimated earthwork quantities. Another key factor that contributes to the overall quantity
estimation is the soil shrink-swell factors.
• Model enhancement might be necessary during the development process for certain aspects,
such as providing offsets between pavements and subgrades, delineating areas where
equipment operation is excluded, and correcting inconsistencies that are not problematic for
93

NCHRP Project 10-77
design models but are for AMG.

• Most of the equipment vendors indicated potential productivity gain of about 40% and
potential cost savings of about 25 to 40% using AMG. Contractors indicated potential
productivity gain of about 10 to 25% and potential cost savings of about 10 to 25% using
AMG. The results from detailed case studies described in the literature and survey responses
indicate that the productivity gain and cost savings using AMG on earthwork projects can
vary significantly (with productivity gains in the range of 5% to 270% and cost savings in the
range of 10% to 70%). This variation is most likely because of various contributing factors,
such as project conditions, materials, application, equipment used, position measurement
technologies used, and operator experience.
• It is extremely important that existing surfaces are portrayed as accurately as possible, so the
model can be passed ahead to the design, estimation, bidding, and construction phases of the
project with high fidelity. A proper understanding of the factors that influence the accuracy of
the DTM is important to understand and must be addressed during the model development
phase.
• Survey results, reported in Chapter 3, indicated that a majority (> 70%) of contractors,
software/hardware vendors, and agencies who responded believe that the number of elevation
data points used in creating the DTM is a key factor in the accuracy of the DTM.
Reference
Vennapusa, P. K. R., D. J. White, and C. T. Jahren. 2015. Impacts of Automated Machine Guidance on
Earthwork Operations. Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Autonomous and Robotic Construction of
Infrastructure. Center for Earthworks Engineering Research at Iowa State University, Ames, IA. pp. 207–
216.
94

NCHRP Project 10-77
CHAPTER 9: ACCURACY OF AMG PROCESSES

During various stages of the project life cycle, accuracy is a key issue, particularly surrounding
the following areas of the project:
• Initial data collection for developing existing surface terrain

• Development of DTM and EED
• AMG processes, procedures, and end-user competencies
• QA/QC reported practices
• Heavy and fine grading equipment operations
• Paving equipment operations
The survey conducted as part of this research specifically targeted these areas to gather input
from contractors, software/hardware vendors, and agencies (See Chapter 3). Accuracy issues involving
initial data collection and DTM/EED modeling are discussed in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7.
This chapter focuses on the several factors that influence the accuracy of the AMG process. As
background information, findings of a discussion session from the 2009 workshop on AMG accuracy
(with cross-references to the outcomes from the survey) are presented below. (See Appendix A for full
workshop report.).
ACCURACY REVIEW – AMG WORKSHOP
A session at the AMG workshop was dedicated to the discussion of AMG accuracy issues.
Participants were asked to recall instances where AMG accuracy was compromised. They provided
feedback on various sources of errors that contributed to the overall accuracy of AMG, as summarized in
Table 9-1.
Table 9-1. Various Sources of Errors Contributing to the Overall AMG Accuracy (2009 Workshop
Findings)
Error
# Description (random order)
1 Errors in setting up the control network
2 Inaccuracy in the preconstruction survey used to develop the DTMs
3 Errors in the design
4 Errors that result from faulty software
5 Errors that result from faulty hardware
6 Limitations to the accuracy of positioning method (GPS, total station, or laser)
Errors transmitting control information from the positioning equipment (GPS, total station
7 receiver, or laser) to the machine hydraulic controls for the ground- or pavement-engaging
equipment
Inability of machine hydraulic controls to respond accurately or smoothly to instructions from
8
AMG units (overcorrection, slow response, and other similar problems)
9 Human error in operating hardware, software, and equipment
Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process (or false indications of inaccuracy
10
during a QA/QC process)
11 Sensor/technology/system limitations (such as pushing beyond the limits of the equipment)
95

NCHRP Project 10-77
Frequency of the errors (by Error # shown in Table 9-1) and strategies for error detection and
mitigation are detailed in Table 9-2. The research team also conducted interviews with various contractors
after the workshop to get feedback on the various error detection and mitigation strategies. Some
contractors shared their field experiences on various sources of errors, and these are summarized in the
Table 9-2 notes. Survey outcomes from contractors, vendors, and agency personnel on factors
contributing to the overall accuracy of AMG are also cross-referenced in the Table 9-2 notes.
VARIABLES THAT INFLUENCE THE ACCURACY OF AMG PROCESSES
The accuracy of the AMG process is primarily influenced by three variables:
• Position measurement technology

• Construction process
• Human errors
Survey responses from surveyors and planners indicated total station surveying (robotic and
conventional) is considered more accurate than GPS and photogrammetric surveying. Manufacturers and
researchers have published the precision and accuracy values of various position measurement
technologies in the technical literature (Peyret et al., 2000; Retsher, 2002; Barnes et al., 2003; Mautz,
2008; and Trimble, 2008).
It does not appear that the effect of construction process and human errors has ever been
thoroughly studied or quantified. Most contractors, vendors, and agency personnel who responded to the
survey questions reported that these variables play a significant role in the overall accuracy of the AMG
process (See Table 9-2). The remainder of this chapter summarizes some of the key factors that affect
these variables and a statistical approach along with experimental results to assess factors affecting
accuracy.
Position Measurement Technologies
Table 9-3 provides a summary of accuracy, coverage range, measurement principle, and relative
cost of different position measurement technologies that are typically used in construction applications.
The laser or ultrasonic technologies offer higher vertical (elevation) accuracies than GPS and
have shown success in achieving tighter tolerances on some fine grading projects (Daoud, 1999).
However, laser or ultrasonic technologies have some practical limitations with use in rain, dust, wind, and
snow, and need frequent charging of deep cell batteries (Cable et al., 2009). These technologies also
require a direct line of sight between the control station and the receiver on the equipment, which is why
they have not been used on heavy earth moving equipment, other than motor graders (Jonasson et al.,
2000).
GPS-based technologies can overcome the limitations stated above with laser and ultrasonic
technologies, but they don’t offer high vertical accuracy. Based on field studies, Peyret et al. (2000) noted
that RTK GPS systems normally have vertical accuracy (±20 mm) or twice the horizontal accuracy (±10
mm). A vertical accuracy level of ±20 mm is not sufficient for applications such as paving. Peyret et al.
(2000) proposed a solution to improve the RTK GPS vertical accuracy to ±10 mm by filtering (or post-
processing) high-frequency noise and low-frequency bias in the GPS signal. The filtering approach,
however, posed some problems in the field, especially when conditions (such as constellation, horizon,
multi-paths, or masking) are different from one antenna to the other.
96

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 9-2. Frequency of Errors and Suggested Detection/Mitigation Strategies

Frequency
Error Project
# Daily Seldom Duration Random Detection Mitigation Strategy
1 √F Field QC Training and standardized protocols
Use of advanced surveying techniques, such
2 √ Design phase
as digital photogrammetry or LIDAR *
Design phase/ Review of design with emphasis on
3 √ A1†
Field QC application of AMG
Project start Have current software versions and firmware
4 √2
up, Field QC upgrades
5 √ CD √3 Field QC Have back-ups with spare inventory
Establish appropriate technology selection
Project Start
6 √1 guidance criteria based on project tolerance
up, Field QC
requirements
Follow standard operation procedures for
7 √4 Field QC
maintenance, training, and inspection
Follow standard procedures for maintenance,
8 √ √5 √ Field QC training, and inspection protocols to check
wear parts, and so forth ** §
9 √ 6B Field QC Training and standardized protocols G § §§
Operator
Training and standard guidelines on QA/QC
10 √ 7 †† √ 7 †† assessment,
testing and procedures §§
Field QC
Establish appropriate technology selection
Project start
11 √E guidance criteria based on project tolerance
up, Field QC
requirements ***
Notes: Error # as defined in Table 9-1.
Notes based on workshop participant feedback indicated in frequency columns:

1
Frequent although not daily 2Software misuse 3Hardware misuse 4Generally not too many issues 5May need new calibration or
a valve change to link with how machine is being used 6Major issue to consider 7Function of project size and application
Notes based on field personnel (contractor and workshop participant) experiences indicated in frequency columns:
A
Owner and contractor not using the same DTM; Cooperator following wrong line on screen; Blade wear incorrect (unchecked
for long time); DIntermittent changes in GPS vertical accuracies; ELaser-based systems were influenced by strobe lights during
operation; FMost common circumstance leading to reduced accuracy (experience of a contractor); GPeriodic checks (about
every 2 weeks) for GPS base station and daily checks of grade behind machines
Notes based on project survey outcomes indicated in mitigation strategy columns:

* 81% of contractors, 74% of agency personnel, and 87% of heavy equipment manufacturers responded that inaccuracies in the
original survey contained in the DTM is one of the major factors contributing to the overall AMG Accuracy.
** 77% of contractors, 62% of agency personnel, and 63% of heavy equipment manufacturers responded that machine response
time to positioning information (hydraulic control response) is a major factor contributing to the overall AMG Accuracy.
*** 77% of contractors, 75% of agency personnel, and 81% of heavy equipment manufacturers responded that limitations in the
positioning methods are one of the major factors contributing to the overall AMG accuracy.
§ 80% of contractors, 75% of agency personnel, and 81% of heavy equipment manufacturers responded that lack of operator
training in heavy equipment operation is one of the major factors contributing to the overall AMG accuracy.
§§ 52 to 100% of contractors, 70 to 90% of agency personnel, and 60 to 100% of heavy equipment manufacturers responded that
training/competencies of model builders, field inspectors, and grading machine operators is one of the major factors
contributing to the overall AMG accuracy.
† 77% of contractors, 65% of agency personnel, and 63% of heavy equipment manufacturers responded that end-user misuse of
products (equipment, hardware, and software) is one of the major factors contributing to the overall AMG accuracy.
†† 88% of contractors, 74% of agency personnel, and 88% of heavy equipment manufacturers responded that failure to identify
inaccuracies during the QA/QC process is one of the major factors contributing to the overall AMG accuracy.
97

NCHRP Project 10-77
A frequent problem reported with GPS-based technologies is limited availability of satellites

(and, consequently, poor signal attenuation) when operating close to structures, trees, or underground
environments. Currently, the U.S. Air Force is committed to maintaining availability of 24 operational
GPS satellites, 95% of the time (U.S. Air Force 2014) and is projecting for increased number of satellites
in the future. Hein et al. (2007) indicated that the relative gain in accuracy from an increased number of
satellites will be marginal. However, AMG users can expect to increase the chances of having the
minimum number of satellites required to achieve a certain amount of accuracy because of the new
additional satellites.
Inertial navigation systems (INS) use gyroscopes and accelerometers and can be used to provide
continuous position, velocity, and altitude during only a short signal outage, as the maximum signal
outage time is very limited (Mautz, 2008).
Recent advancements with use of HA-NDGPS with initiatives from FHWA, globally positioned
GDGPS and International GNSS Service (IGS) technologies is providing opportunities to achieve cm
level accuracy without significant on-site investment. U.S. Air Force is currently in the process of
developing and launching a next-generation GPS satellite (GPS III) which will be available for all
military and civilian applications with improved accuracies (U.S. Air Force 2014).
Barnes et al. (2003) described LocataNet, a pseudolite-based positioning technology
(www.locatacorp.com), which consists of a network of terrestrially-based and time-synchronized
pseudolite transceivers that transmit GPS-like signals to obtain position measurements. The signals
transmitted using pseudolites are several orders of magnitude stronger than the signals transmitted via
GPS; therefore, they are less affected by nearby structures, trees, and so forth. (Mautz, 2008). Based on a
kinematic performance test on Locata, Barnes et al. (2003) reported that about 80% of the values are
accurate within ±20 mm. LocataNet can be used to augment GPS measurements where necessary,
although, theoretically, with enough pseudolites, it is possible to replace GPS (Barnes et al., 2003).
GPS with laser or ultrasonic augmentation offers improved vertical accuracies (2 to 6 mm)
(Trimble, 2008). From recent field studies on concrete paving projects in Iowa, Cable et al. (2009) found
that laser-augmented GPS measurements are somewhat capable of guiding the paver and controlling
elevation to achieve a reasonable profile for low-volume roads, but recommended that improvements (or
fine tuning) in software is required to better control the elevation that will result in smoother surface
profiles.
Table 9-4 summarizes a few AMG and equipment application categories and the associated
vertical and horizontal accuracy requirements.
98

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 9-3. Summary of Different Position Measurement Technologies

System Accuracy Range User Cost Reference
Conventional GPS (no
Variable, > 5 m Global Low DoD, 2008
corrections)
Assisted GPS (via mobile
Variable, 2 to 10 m Global Low Mautz, 2008
phones)
GPS integrated with INS Variable Global Variable Mautz, 2008

WAAS or Satellite Based 1.6 to 3.2 m
Augmentation System horizontal and 4 to Global Low FAA, 2008
(SBAS) 6 m vertical
1 m within 150 km
Nationwide differential ARINC Inc.,
of the broadcast Global Low
GPS (NDGPS) 2008
site
Low –
10 cm horizontal
HA–NDGPS Global currently in FRP, 2012
and 20 cm vertical
development
Global DGPS 10 cm horizontal Global Low NASA, 2014
<10 cm horizontal
IGS Global Low Moore, 2007
and vertical
Moderate to
RTK GPS cm* Global Mautz, 2008
high
Barnes et al.,
Locata (pseudolites) 6 mm 2 to 3 km High
2003
Moderate to
Laser- augmented GPS 3 to 6 mm 300 m/line of Trimble, 2008
high
site radius of
laser source Low to
Laser ±2 mm Retscher, 2002
moderate
700 m/line of
Robotic total station ±2 mm site radius of High Retscher, 2002
source
Immediate Low to
Ultrasonic ±1 mm Trimble, 2008
reference moderate
Immediate Moderate to
Ultrasonic augmented GPS ±1 mm Trimble, 2008
reference high
Kraut-
Infrared laser 0.1 to 0.2 mm 2 to 80 m High
Schneider, 2006
* About 90% of survey respondents reported horizontal accuracy of 2 cm or less and 45% of respondents reported vertical
accuracy of 2 cm or less with GPS (See Chapter 3)
Signal outage or poor satellite reception problems with GPS have been addressed using mobile
phones, INS, and pseudolite-based technologies. Use of mobile phones is referred to as Assisted GPS,
wherein mobile phones provide information of the satellite Ephemeris, Almanac, differential corrections,
and other relevant information (Mautz, 2008). However, the level of accuracy achieved is variable and
relatively poor (±10 m), compared to RTK GPS. GPS integrated with
99

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 9-4. Comparison of different types of construction machines (after Retscher 2002)
Equipment Major Application Field* Typical Precision Requirements
Dozer Bulk earthworks and earthmoving up to ± 20 mm
Grader Fine grading, side slope work up to ± 5 mm
up to ± 5 mm in plane
Road Paving Asphalt/concrete surfaces for
and ± 3 mm in height
machine pavements
up to ± 5 mm in plane
Slip form paving Concrete surface for pavements and
and ± 2 mm in height
machine high-speed railways
*Vertical accuracy requirements (Houghton, 2001): finished surface: < ± 6 mm; base course: ± 6 mm; upper road
surface: ± 8 mm; road base: ± 15 mm; Subbase: ± 10 to 30 mm; formation and cap: ± 20 to 30 mm. Accuracy
requirements (Peyert et al. 2000): subbase: ± 30 mm; base: ± 20 mm; binder course: ± 15 mm; wearing course: ± 5 mm
Construction Process and Human Errors
The overall accuracy of the AMG process includes these construction process parameters:
• Speed of operation
• Direction of travel
• Terrain
• Material type and support conditions (uniformity)
These parameters have not been thoroughly studied or documented in the technical literature and
they are application-specific or machine-specific. A brief explanation of each is presented below and a
statistical approach to quantify the influence of these factors on the overall accuracy of the AMG process
is presented in the following section of this report along with some experimental test results. The level of
impact for each of these factors differs with the application type.
Speed of operation affects AMG accuracy and overall project costs. Increasing speed decreases
the ability of machines to react to error signals and, consequently, reduces the accuracy of the
measurement. However, productivity declines as speed declines, impacting project costs. The effect of
speed of operation is clearly interlinked with the abilities of the position measurement technology
feedback response time.
The terrain on a job site can have an impact. Although not critical for paving and fine grading
applications, terrain can be critical for general earthwork and excavation applications.
The type of material and support conditions under the equipment (whether stable or unstable,
uniform or non-uniform) impacts the overall accuracy. Unstable or non-uniform support conditions under
the equipment make it more difficult to maintain control relative to the reference. This factor can play a
critical role in paving and fine grading applications, and may not be as critical for general earthwork and
excavation applications. A conceptual illustration of resulting pavement layer thickness with and without
uniform support conditions is presented in Figure 9-1.
100

NCHRP Project 10-77
Deviation of mean from target

Desired
Target Uniform
support
Probability Density
conditions
Non-Uniform
Support Conditions
Pavement Layer Thickness
Figure 9-1. Conceptual Illustration of Comparison between Pavement Layer Thickness with
Uniform Support Conditions and Non-Uniform Support Conditions Using AMG
AMG Control for Single Phase versus Multiple Phases of Project
Evaluations of accuracy are primarily based on assessment of one phase of the project or one
machine. According to Jack Maclean in a personal communication in 2010, a potential limitation when
applying GPS control to highway work is using it as a control for a single phase of the work. Further, the
preparation (or analysis of the existing pavement profile and design of the new and milled or trimmed
surface) is the most key step. Once the analysis and prep work is completed properly, different systems of
paver control have the potential to produce superior results.
This concept of building on layers of materials placed with AMG control need to be further
investigated.
QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF ACCURACY
Statistical Data Analyses Approach
The statistical analyses described herein are to evaluate the accuracy and the precision achieved
for an application using different position measurement technologies. The term precision parameter is
important to address here, as it relates to the repeatability and reproducibility of the process.
Repeatability refers to the variation in repeated measurements made on the same subject under identical
conditions (Taylor and Kuyatt, 1994). This explains the variations observed in measurements made using
the same setup, equipment, operator, and method, over which there is no change in the measuring
property. Reproducibility refers to the variation in repeated measurements on the same subject under
changing conditions (Taylor and Kuyatt, 1994). The changing conditions may be due to a change in
operators, material types, support conditions, direction of machine travel, etc. Equations 9-1 through 9-3
provide the formulae involved in determining the repeatability and reproducibility errors. The
reproducibility variation is evaluated separately for each changing condition, first, and then is combined
in the end to calculate the overall effect.
σ repeatability = MSE (9-1)
 MSC (I − 1)MSAC MSE 

σ reproducibility = max 0, + −  (9-2)
 mI mI m 
101

NCHRP Project 10-77
where m repeated measurements obtained at a given location for I number of times by J number
of operators or material types or support conditions or travel direction, using estimates from two-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) results (see Table 9-5).
2 2
σ R &R = σ repeatability + σ reproducibility( operator,material,etc )
(9-3)
Table 9-5. Typical Two-Way ANOVA Table

SS (sum of DOF (degree
Source square) of freedom) MS (mean square)
Location (I) SSA I-1 MSA = SSA/(I-1)
Number of operators or
operating conditions or SSC J-1 MSC = SSA/(J-1)
support conditions etc. (J)
I x J (interaction term) SSAC (I-1) (J-1) MSAC = SSAC/(I-1) (J-1)
Error SSC IJ (m-1) MSE = SSE/IJ(m-1)
Total SSTot IJm - 1 —
To quantitatively differentiate the capability of each measurement technology specific to the

application, the gauge capability ratio (GCR) factor can be computed using equation 9-4. The lower the
GCR, the better the capability of the measurement technology for that application.
6σ R &R
GCR = (9-4)
U−L
where U and L are the upper and lower tolerance limits, respectively.
Experimental Test Results
Field experiments were conducted on three project sites in 2014 on GPS devices mounted on
roller compactors. The objective of the field experiments was to demonstrate the use of the statistical
analysis approach outlined above to assess the accuracy of the vertical (elevation) measurements from
GPS with and without the influence of travel direction. The machines were operated in 3 to 4 km/h
nominal speeds and the data was collected approximately every 0.2 to 0.3 m.
Project 1 consisted of a Caterpillar CS74 roller with a padfoot shell kit and a RTK-GPS over an
earthwork grading project with sloping terrain (Figure 9-2). Machine was operated using 5 passes each in
up slope and down slope directions. The elevation difference was about 4 m over the 100-m long test
strip.
Project 2 consisted of a Caterpillar CS56 smooth drum roller with RTK-GPS over a relatively flat
ground of a gravel road (Figure 9-3). Machine was operated using 16 passes in one direction.
Project 3 consisted of a CS74 smooth drum roller with GPS receiving satellite-based
augmentation system (SBAS) corrections (no RTK) over a sloping gravel road (Figure 9-4). Machine was
operated using 4 passes each in up slope and down slope directions. The elevation difference was about
1.5 to 2 m over the 150-m long test strip.
Results from multiple passes from each site are shown in Figure 9-5. Repeatability measurement
error analysis results are summarized in Table 9-6, and R&R analysis results analyzing the influence of
change in direction of travel are summarized in Table 9-7. In comparison with the vertical accuracy
requirements summarized in Table 9-5 for bulk earthwork construction, the results indicate that machines
equipped with RTK-GPS system on projects 1 and 2 can meet the tolerances while non-RTK GPS used
102

NCHRP Project 10-77
on Project 3 cannot. While change in travel can increase the reproducibility error, having RTK-GPS can
help significantly minimize the error.
Figure 9-2. CS74 roller setup with padfoot shell kit and RTK-GPS on Project 1 with sloping uneven
ground conditions a grading project
Figure 9-3. CS563E smooth drum roller setup with RTK-GPS on Project 2 with relatively flat grade
over gravel road
103

NCHRP Project 10-77
Figure 9-4. CS74 smooth drum roller setup with SBAS-GPS on Project 3 with sloping gravel road
Assessment Plan
The research team developed an evaluation matrix of the several factors discussed above
(machine related, technology related, and human related), which contribute to the overall accuracy of the
AMG process. The evaluation matrix is organized by separating the application categories as follows:
• General earthwork
• Fine grading
• Excavation
• Paving
The result of the evaluation matrix is a table providing a qualitative assessment of each of these
factors, in terms of its level of significance to the overall accuracy of the AMG process (low (L), medium
(M), or high (H)) for each application category, based on quantitative information (See Table 9-4). As an
example, Table 9-8 was prepared with a preliminary assessment for the influence of several factors on
several applications. This assessment approach was applied to the application for intelligent compaction
position for two different rollers at three different sites (described earlier). Future studies that desire to
quantify the accuracy of AMG technologies with experimental testing and expand the matrix are
encouraged.
104

NCHRP Project 10-77
Project 1: CS74 with padfoot shell kit and RTK-GPS

264
263 Pass 1 - Downslope

Pass 9 - Downslope
Pass 2 - Upslope
262
Pass 10 - Upslope
Elevation (m)
261
260
259 Measurement Error based on one direction = < 1 cm

Measurement Error based on both directions = 2.4 cm
258
257
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Project 2: CS56 smooth drum with RTK-GPS

157
156 Pass 1
Pass 5
Pass 15
155
Elevation (m)
154
153
152
Measurement Error based on one direction = < 1 cm

151
150
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Project 3: CS74 smooth drum without RTK-GPS (SBAS)

356
355 Pass 5 - Up Slope

Pass 11 - Up Slope
Pass 6 - Down Slope
354
Pass 12 - Down Slope
Elevation (m)
353
352
351
Measurement Error based on one direction = 4.6 cm

350 Measurement Error based on both directions = 6.7 cm
349
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Distance (m)
Figure 9-5. CS56 smooth drum roller setup with RTK-GPS on Project 2 with relatively flat grade
over gravel road
105

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 9-6. Summary of repeatability analysis results on GPS elevation measurements on three
earthwork project sites with and without RTK-GPS mounted on roller compactors
Elevation
Average Measurement
Project Direction Range (m) (m) Error (cm)
Project 1: RTK-GPS Down Slope (5 passes) 0.9
mounted on CS74 258.7 to
Up Slope (5 passes) 260.8 0.9
roller with padfoot 262.6
shell kit Both Directions (10 passes) 2.4*
Project 2: RTK-GPS
153.0 to
mounted on CS563E Relatively flat grade (16 passes) 153.2 0.6
153.3
smooth drum roller
Project 3: SBAS (no Up Slope (4 passes) 4.6

351.2 to
RTK) on CS74 Down Slope (4 passes) 352.3 4.0
352.9
smooth drum roller
Both Directions (8 passes) 6.7*
*Data includes both directions – see impact of change in direction of travel in R&R analysis results
Table 9-7. Summary of R&R analysis results on GPS elevation measurements to assess the
influence of change in direction of travel
Elevation (cm) Impact of change in

Percent contribution* direction on
Project σrepeatability σreproducibility σR&R of σreproducibility measurement values
Project 1: RTK-GPS
mounted on CS74
1.2 3.0 3.4 89.4 Significant
roller with padfoot
shell kit
Project 3: SBAS (no
RTK) on CS74 11.0 13.1 17.1 59.8 Significant
smooth drum roller
*
100 x σ2repeatability /σ2R&R
106

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 9-8. Example Qualitative Assessment matrix of Accuracy Factors for Various Application
Categories
Machine Related Errors Technology Related Errors
GPS (with corr.)
Laser Aug. GPS
Ultrasonic Aug.
High. Accuracy
GPS (no corr.)
Low Accuracy
Material Type
Conditions
Operation
Category
Speed of
Support
Terrain
Sonar
Machine Human
GPS
RTS
Slip
Type Error
Scraper H M M M H M L L L M L M
General Earthwork
Dozer M L M M M H L L L H L M
Pulverizer M M H M M H L L L H L M
Moisture/
Chemical H M H M M H L L L H L M
Control
Grader M H H M M H L L L H L M
Grader M H H M M H L L L H L M
Grading
Fine
Trimmer M H H M M H L L L H L M
Excavator H M H M M H L L L H L H
Excavation
Loader H M H M M H L L L H L H
Miller M H H M M H L L L H L M
Paving
Concrete M H H M M H L L L H L M
Asphalt M H H M M H L L L H L M
L, M, and H indicate low, medium, or high significance
ACCURACY OF AMG SUMMARY
• AMG component accuracies is an issue that affects various stages of the process including:
Initial data collection for developing existing surface terrains; development of DTM and
EED, AMG processes, procedures, and end-user competencies, QA/QC reported practices,
heavy and fine grading equipment operations, and paving equipment operations.
107

NCHRP Project 10-77
• Sources of errors contributing to the overall AMG accuracy were identified as an outcome
from the AMG Phase I Workshop and were related to frequency of error, means for detection,
and mitigation strategies to overcome the error. Survey outcomes from contractors, vendors,
and agency personnel on factors contributing to the overall accuracy of AMG are cross-
referenced to the findings from the workshop results. It does not appear that the effect of
construction process and human errors has ever been thoroughly studied or quantified. Most
contractors, vendors, and agency personnel who responded to the survey questions reported
that these variables play a key role in the overall accuracy of the AMG process.
• A frequent problem reported with GPS-based technologies is limited availability of satellites
(and, consequently, poor signal attenuation) when operating close to structures, trees, or
underground environments. Currently, the U.S. Air Force is committed to maintaining
availability of 24 operational GPS satellites, 95% of the time (U.S. Air Force 2014) and is
projecting for increased number of satellites in the future. While the relative gain in accuracy
from an increased number of satellites will be marginal (Hein et al., 2007), AMG users can
expect to increase the chances of having the minimum number of satellites required to
achieve a certain amount of accuracy because of the new additional satellites.
• The overall accuracy of the AMG process includes these construction process parameters:
speed of operation, material type and support conditions (uniformity), and terrain. These
parameters have not been thoroughly studied or documented in the technical literature and
they are application-specific or machine-specific. A statistical analysis approach to
quantitatively assess the influence of these different parameters is presented along with some
experimental results. The level of impact for each of these factors differs with the application
type.
• A detailed evaluation of the several factors (machine related, technology related, and human
related), which contribute to the overall accuracy of the AMG process, are encouraged for
future study. An assessment matrix is provided to rate factors by significance.
108

NCHRP Project 10-77
CHAPTER 10: AMG IMPLEMENTATION AND GUIDELINES

SPECIFICATIONS
As AMG technology evolves, improved implementation guidelines and specifications will be

needed for use on state transportation projects. As discussed in previous chapters, there are several
interrelated needs for advancing AMG and a wide spectrum of technologies involved with AMG
application. The workflow processes can be complex and involve coordination among parties to be most
effective. When implemented by transportation authorities, guidelines for the use of AMG technology
will likely be incorporated in the following:
• Statements and declarations of policy,

• Surveying manuals,
• Design manuals,
• Computer design standards,
• Construction manuals (to guide construction management personnel of the contracting
authority, such as resident construction engineer staff members),
• QA manuals, and
• AMG specifications
The exact titles and grouping of the above documents will vary from state to state; however, some
document is required to perform each function implied by the above documents. Rather than have one
document that addresses AMG only, contracting authorities will likely be more effective in implementing
desirable changes by revising the above documents to encourage the use of AMG. In this way AMG will
be integrated in the authority’s business model rather than tacked on as an optional accessory. The
annotated bibliography (Appendix B) includes examples of some of the agency related documents and a
few are available on-line via agency websites.
In addition to the above documents, it will be necessary to provide guidelines that will assist
transportation authorities as they strive to modify their procurement processes to accommodate AMG.
When the design-bid-build contracting strategy is used, construction services are usually procured using a
public letting where the lowest responsive and responsible bidder is selected. Under such conditions,
guidelines need to be developed to facilitate the drafting of AMG specifications. As part of this research
effort, a guide specification tool (described later) was developed to assist agencies and researchers.
Professional services are procured separately from the construction services when the design-bid-
build strategy is used. In federally funded projects, such procurement is governed by the Brooks Act
(1972) which requires that selection of professional services is qualifications based. Many states have
enacted Mini Brooks Laws; therefore, even though a project may be completely state funded,
qualifications based procurement may still be required. Qualifications based procurement is often a multi-
step process. First the transportation authority issues a request for proposals and interested firms respond
with a summary of their qualifications and a preliminary conceptual description of an intended design or
the service to be rendered. The cost is not discussed in these proposals. The transportation authority then
ranks the proposals from highest to lowest and commences to negotiate with the highest ranked
respondent to develop a detailed scope of services and budget. If these negotiations fail (most likely
because the cost might be too high), the transportation authority engages the next most qualified firm in
negotiations. Although theoretically this process can be repeated several times until negotiations are
successful, in most cases the highest ranked firm is selected.
For AMG, design services and possibly surveying services, QA services, construction
management services are the likely professional services that are covered by the Brooks Act. Guidelines
should be provided to help transportation authorities develop RFPs and negotiate scopes of work. Model
RFPs and scopes of work may be desirable. Procurement of professional services will be eased by having
the design manuals, surveying manuals, construction manuals, QA manual, CADD standards and
109

NCHRP Project 10-77
construction specifications listed earlier that can be referenced in the RFP and during negotiations.
Design-build services are procured in many ways depending upon the governing jurisdiction and
circumstances. Often, combinations of the attractiveness of the design approach, qualifications, cost and
schedule are used as selection criteria. For example, FAR Par 36.3 (http://www.acquisition.gov
/far/html/Subpart%2036_3.html) describes a two phase selection process. In Phase I the agency develops
a scope of work for the solicitation and the offers respond with proposals. The proposals are rated
regarding technical approach, technical qualifications, and other factor excluding cost. Based on the
results of the review, a limited number of competitors are selected to provide more detailed Phase II
proposals which include technical and cost proposals that are submitted separately. These proposals are
rated according predetermined factors announced in the solicitation and contractor is selected. Guidelines
that are helpful for the procurement of professional and construction services will be helpful for procuring
design-build services that include AMG.
Development of a robust data transfer protocol has been a challenge for AMG practitioners.
LandXML schema was developed to enhance interoperability among hardware and software platforms;
however, the results of the questionnaire survey of this project shows that it is used less than 10% of time,
except for contract document creation. Since there are only two major 3D modeling software developers
and three major positioning hardware suppliers, it is possible for each software supplier to develop
utilities to export and import from the three major hardware suppliers and vice versa. In addition, another
software developer has developed a suite of software that is claimed to be agnostic regarding any of the
commonly used hardware and software platforms. This direct interoperability has reduced the need to
develop a separate schema to promote interoperability and the results of the survey bears this out. Given
this situation, researcher and industry need to continue to develop alternative methods and guidelines for
enhancing data transfer.
AMG SPECIFICATION ASSESSMENT
As part of the research effort, specifications from several transportation authorities were
collected. First, documents were requested from contacts at states known to be allowing the use of AMG
systems. Then, each of the remaining states’ websites was searched for AMG specification documents. If
no documents were found (generally the case), the Specification Engineer was contacted to determine
whether that state DOT had to address contractors using AMG systems on projects. In a few instances,
state DOTs either had or were drafting a specification, special provision, or waiver letter. All available
documents were collected. All 50 states were contacted for example specifications. The specifications
collected are provided in Appendix C.
For states that did not have specifications, interviews were conducted to understand why and the
level of interest in developing specifications. Responses indicated that in general, most states desired
AMG specifications, but barriers with training, software tools, design guidelines, and perceived issues
with liability via electronic data sharing, problems with electronic data delivery, reference datum issues,
and needing to pilot test AMG were barriers identified as reasons for not having a specification.
Based on the specifications that were studied (Table 10-1), the specifications were “reverse
engineered” to infer the “guidelines” that must have been considered when the specifications were
originally drafted. Our assessment indicates the following:
• AMG will impact the earthwork, subgrade and base course, and paving sections of typical
transportation authority specifications.
• QC is often considered as a part of the construction services.
• QC is often included as a subsection of a full specification sections,
• Separate QC guidelines will likely need to be developed for each major AMG category such
as earthwork and pavement.
To compare the contents of the specifications, attributes (e.g., Payment) were identified and
compared between the specifications. As shown in Table 10-1, many of the specifications contain
attributes on topics of contractor responsibility, agency responsibility, and EED among others.
110

NCHRP Project 10-77
Table 10-1. Summary of AMG Specifications and Key Attributes
Attributes (see Notes)
GC Training
Work Plan
Licensing
AO Resp
Payment
Liability
Changes
As-Built
QA/QC
C Resp
Layout
EED
GPS
RTS
Source Date Type Topic
AASHTO 2007 Guidance EED ■
CalTrans Special
2007 MCG ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Dist. 11 Provision*
2009 Guidance AMG ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

CalTrans
2013 Guidance AMG ■ ■ ■
Survey
CO DOT 2008 Standard ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Control
Guidance-
2007 MC ■ ■
Design
DE DOT
Draft
2009 M CG ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Standard
Develop-
2007 MCG ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
mental§
Develop-
IA DOT 2009 MCG ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
mental§
Develop- PCC Paving

2012 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
mental§ 3-D MC
Stakeless
IN DOT 2009 Standard ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Excavation
MD DOT 2008 Standard MCG ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Special
MN DOT 2001 DTM ■ ■ ■
Provision¥
M DOT 2010 Standard AMG ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
MO DOT 2009 Standard DTM ■ ■ ■
Liability Liability
MDT 2004 ■
Waiver Waiver
2005 Standard EED ■

NYS DOT
Survey
2006 Standard ■ ■ ■
Control
111

NCHRP Project 10-77
Attributes (see Notes)
GC Training
Work Plan
Licensing
AO Resp
Payment
Liability
Changes
As-Built
QA/QC
C Resp
Layout
EED
GPS
RTS
Source Date Type Topic
Draft
NYS DOT 2009 AMG ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Standard
Special
Provision
2008 AMG ■ ■ ■ ■
(Design-
NC DOT Build)
Survey
2009 Standard ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Operations
Special
WA DOT 2008 AMG ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Provision
Special
WV DOT 2010 DTM ■ ■ ■ ■
Provision
Subgrade
Special
2009 Staking/ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Provision
WI DOT AMG
Survey
2014 Standard ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Operations
Survey
WY DOT 2015 Standard ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Operations
Notes: *Non-Standard; §Developmental Specification; ¥For Planning/Consultants; MCG – Machine Control Grading; EED –
Electronic Engineered Data; MC – Machine Control; DTM – Digital Terrain Model; C Resp – Contractor Responsibility; AO
Resp – AgencyOwner Responsibility; Layout – Project Layout (Staking); Liability – Liability for Design Clause w/use of EED;
Payment – Payment Clause; Changes – Changes Clause for EED; QA/QC – Quality Assurance/Quality Control; Work Plan –
Contractor Work Plan Requirement; Licensing – Discusses Professional License Requirements; GPS – Addresses Global
Positioning Systems; RTS – Addresses Robotic Total Station; GC Training – Requires GC (i.e., Owner Training); As-Built –
Requires As-Built Submittals to Agency.
AMG GUIDE SPECIFICATION TOOL
A goal of this project was to develop a guide specification tool (Table 10-2) that could be used to
aid agencies in the specification review and development process. Described in the following is the
process that went into creating the guide specification tool and the instructions for using it.
After reviewing all the collected specifications, it was observed that although the layout of each
specification was different, related topics were addressed and similar language used. For comparing
content between documents, like language was grouped together in a table (not included here). A second
table (not included here) listed each specification’s heading outline with summary of key words. After a
critical review of the phrase and heading tables, the following six heading were identified to best
characterize the specification language from all the specification documents — general, liability,
equipment, responsibilities, measurement, and payment. These headings were selected for inclusion in the
guide specification tool. The specification development process described in the FHWA Report
“Evaluation of Procedures for Quality Assurance Specifications”, (2004) was used to guide the process of
compiling the content for each of the key headings.
Next a compilation of important key phrases used in the existing AMG specifications was
synthesized. A letter and number enumerate each line item. The letter corresponds to the first letter of the
112

NCHRP Project 10-77
section header (e.g. the general section is G.01, G.02, etc.). Responsibilities are subdivided into agency
(AR) and contractor (CR). A single idea is represented by each line item. In some cases, the basic idea is
viewed differently by states. To not omit certain perspectives, nested statements are used to provide
optional content in lieu of the primary content or additional content that can be added to the primary
content. Brackets with highlighted text, <<xxx >>, are occasionally used to provide an option word or
short phrase rather than repeat variations of the primary phrases. Most of the table’s content has been
synthesized for purpose of being used as a guide specification. At this time, a legal staff has not reviewed
this content, however, several members of the expert contact group have provided feedback.
To use the AMG guide specification tool, it would ideally be reviewed and discussed by agency
design and contracting groups and provided to contractors for review and comments. The guide tool is
formatted so that it can be printed, marked for items to include, marked to add additional items, and space
for adding comments.
Table 10-2. AMG Guide Specification Tool
Item Section: General (G) 

G.01 Roadway construction may be performed utilizing AMG system(s) in accordance with the standard 
specifications, special provisions, and contract documents.
G.02 AMG is defined as the utilization of positioning technologies such as GPS, robotic total stations, 
lasers, and sonic systems to automatically guide and adjust construction equipment according to
the intended design requirements.
G.03 The contractor may use any type of AMG system(s) that result in compliance with the contract 
documents and applicable Standard Specifications.
G.04 DTM files will be created with the computer software applications MicroStation (CADD software) 
and GEOPAK (CE software). The data files will be provided in the native formats.
G.05 Electronic data is provided for the Contractor's convenience, and is not a part of the Contract. 
G.06 The plans indicate areas of the project where roadway construction may be accomplished with 
AMG systems. All other areas shall be constructed with conventional survey and construction
techniques unless the contractor chooses to build the required surface model to facilitate AMG
grading for those areas at no additional cost to the contracting authority.
G.07 The plans indicate the areas of the project where the contracting authority is providing DTM of the 
roadway embankment construction.
G.08 GPS is not intended for the use in constructing final surface grades. 
G.09 The engineer may require the contractor to revert to conventional subgrade staking methods for all 
or part of the work at any point during construction if, in the engineer's opinion, the GPS machine
guidance is producing unacceptable results.
G.10 The contractor shall convert the electronic data provided by the contracting authority into the 
format required by their system.
G.11 Areas of the project with no DTM, the contractor may use conventional survey and construction 
methods unless the contractor chooses to develop the required DTM to facilitate AMG grading for
those areas.
Option (none, A. The contractor shall submit the DTM for review to the contracting authority 
A, or B) prior to commencing grading operations.
B. The contractor shall submit the DTM for approval to the contracting authority 
prior to commencing grading operations.
G.13 The contracting authority will only provide the data outlined in this contract and no additional 
electronic data will be provided.
113

NCHRP Project 10-77
Item Section: General (G) 

G.12 A. The cost to develop a DTM to facilitate the use of AMG grading systems 
Option (A or shall be included as a bid item.
B) B. The cost to develop a DTM to facilitate the use of AMG grading systems shall 
not be included as a bid item.
G.__ Other: 
Comments: 
Item Section: Liability (L) 

L.01 The contracting authority is responsible for safeguarding equipment provided by the contractor. 
The contracting authority will bear all cost to replace or repair damaged equipment provided by the
contractor.
L.02 To use any furnished DTM data, the contractor shall release contracting authority and its 
employees from all liability for the accuracy of the data and its conformance to the contract.
L.03 The contracting authority does not guarantee that the electronic data accuracy or completeness, or 
that the data systems used by contracting authority will be directly compatible with the systems
used by the contractor.
Information shown on the paper plans marked with the seal (official plans as advertised) shall 
govern.
L.04
A. Information shown on the paper plans marked with the seal (official plans as 
Option (A or advertised) shall govern.
B) B. Information shown on the paper plans shall govern over the provided 
electronic data.
L.05 The contractor shall assume the risk of error if the information is used for any purpose for which 
the information is not intended.
L.06 The information provided shall not be considered a representation of actual conditions to be 
encountered during construction. Furnishing this information does not relieve the contractor from
the responsibility of making an investigation of conditions to be encountered including, but not
limited to site visits, and basing the bid on information obtained from these investigations, and the
professional interpretations and judgments of the contractor.
L.07 The Contractor understands that any manipulation of the electronic data provided by the 
Contracting Authority shall be taken at their own risk.
L.08 If the contractor chooses to develop their own DTMs, the contractor shall be fully responsible for 
all cost, liability, accuracy and delays.
L.09 The contracting authority is not responsible for the integrity of the information if it is converted to 
a different file format or modified in any way by the contractor.
L.10 Any assumptions made about the electronic data are at the contractor's risk. 
L.11 The contracting authority is not responsible for any computer virus or damage the electronic data 
may cause to the computer systems.
114

NCHRP Project 10-77
Item Section: Liability (L) 

L.12 There will be no cost or credit to the state and no contract time extension for implementing the 
contractor-requested change order.
L.__ Other: 
Comments: 
Item Section: Equipment (E) 

E.01 The contractor may use any type of automated machine control (AMG) systems that achieves 
compliance with the contract documents and applicable standard specifications.
Option (Y or A. The contractor may use any type of approved AMG systems that result in 
N) achieving the existing grading requirements.
E.02 All equipment required to accomplish AMG grading shall be provided by the contractor. 
E.__ Other: 
Comments: 
Item Section: Agency Responsibilities (AR) 

AR.01 The contracting authority will set the initial horizontal and vertical control network of points for 
the project as indicated in the contract documents.
AR.02 The contracting authority will provide the project specific control network, project alignment, and 
coordinate system information to the contractor.
Option (Y or Upon request from the contractor, the contracting authority will provide the 
N) control network and coordinate system information to the contractor.
AR.03 The contracting authority will provide computer-aided design and drafting files created during the 
design process to the contractor for review as part of the contract documents.
Option (Y or The contracting authority will develop and provide computer-aided design and 
N) drafting files created during the design process to the contractor for review as
part of the contract documents.
AR.04 The contracting authority will provide 
the following electronic files:
Option A 
1. Formats from Bentley’s MicroStation suite of road design software
a. Inroads - Existing and proposed DTM
b. MicroStation - Existing and proposed surface elements –
triangles
2. ASCII Format - Alignment Data Files
115

NCHRP Project 10-77

Option B 1. A DTM of the existing and proposed design surface. 
2. ASCII format - Machine Control Surface Model Files.
3. ASCII Format - Alignment Data Files
Option C the following electronic files: 
1. CAD Files:
a. GEOPAK TIN files representing the design surfaces.
b. GEOPAK GPK file containing all horizontal and vertical
alignment information.
c. GEOPAK documentation file describing all the chains and
profiles.
d. MicroStation primary design file.
e. MicroStation cross section files.
f. MicroStation ROW data file.
g. MicroStation photogrammetry and text files.
2. Machine Control Surface Model Files:
a. ASCII format.
b. LandXML format.
c. Trimble TerraModel format.
Note: TIN files and surface model files of the proposed finish grade
include the topsoil placement where required in the plans.
3. Alignment Data Files:
a. ASCII format.
b. LandXML format.
4. Trimble TerraModel format.
Option D the following electronic files: 
1. Project Control - MicroStation DGN file and ASCII file.
2. Existing Topographic Data - MicroStation DGN file(s)
3. Preliminary Surveyed Ground Surface - GeoPak TIN, if available
4. Horizontal and Vertical alignment information - GeoPak GPK file
and/or MicroStation DGN file(s)
5. 2D Design line work (edge of pavement, shoulder, etc.) - MicroStation
DGN file(s)
6. Cross sections - MicroStation DGN file(s), GeoPak format
7. Superelevation - MicroStation DGN file(s), GeoPak format
8. Form Grades - MicroStation DGN file(s)
9. Design Drainage - MicroStation DGN file(s)
AR.05 The contracting authority shall <<approve / certify>> changes to the DTM used by AMG prior to 
contractor using it for grading operations to ensure compliance of the approved “Release for
Construction” sealed plans.
Option (Y or Submit the revised DTM to the contracting authority for review and approval 60 
N) days prior to beginning grading operations. The submittal should include a
narrative detailing change to the original DTM.
AR.06 In the event the contractor presents errors with the provided electronic data, the contracting 
authority will determine what revisions may be required. The contracting authority will revise the
contract plans, if necessary, to address errors or discrepancies that the contractor identifies. The
department will provide the best available information related to those contract plan revisions.
Option (Y or The contracting authority will not revise the contract paper plans or electronic 
N) data files to address errors or discrepancies that the contractor identifies.
116

NCHRP Project 10-77

AR.07 The contracting authority <<will / shall / may>> perform QA checks as necessary of the 
contractor's machine control grading results, surveying calculations, records, field procedures, and
actual staking. If the contracting authority determines that the work is not being performed in
accordance with the specifications, the contracting authority <<shall / may>> order the contractor
to re-construct the work to the requirements of the contract documents at no additional cost to the
contracting authority.
The contracting authority <<, if necessary,>>will request the contractor to provide a <<GPS rover 
AR.08 / GPS rover and Automatic Level>>, for use during the duration of the contract. At the end of the
contract, the contracting authority will return all contractor provided equipment to the contractor.
AR.09 The contracting authority will not make revisions (or enhancements) to the electron design or 
DTM for the convenience of importing data into the AMG system.
AR.10 On projects where electronic design data is not available to bidders pre-bid, the contractor may 
request the data during construction. If the contractor requests electronic design data, check with
the project engineer to find out if it is available. If the electronic design data is available and of the
same level of quality required for the rest of the contract documents, then provide the data to the
contractor. A change order is necessary when providing electronic design data to the contractor to
define the terms and conditions for use of the data. If the data cannot be provided, the contractor
still has the option to develop a DTM and DDM from information on the project plans.
AR.__ Other: 
Comments: 
Item Section: Contractor Responsibilities (CR) 

CR.01 The contractor shall demonstrate the AMG equipment’s capability to meet the tolerance 
specifications; and their knowledge and ability to properly operate it on a test section, as specified
by the contracting authority. If the equipment fails to meet the tolerance standards or the
contractor, in the contracting authority’s opinion, fails to demonstrate proficiency to the
equipment, the contractor shall construct the project using conventional survey and construction
methods.
CR.02 The contractor shall <<provide –OR– provide 8 hours of>> formal training, if requested, on the 
use of the AMG and the contractor's systems to the contracting authority’s project personnel prior
to the start of construction activities utilizing AMG. This training is for providing contracting
authority project personnel with an understanding of the equipment, software, and electronic data
being used by the contractor.
CR.03 The contractor <<, if requested,>>shall provide the contracting authority with a <<GPS rover / 
GPS rover and Automatic Level>>, for use during the duration of the contract. The contractor is
responsible for ensuring the equipment is serviceable and up to date with the latest project data
files. At the end of the contract, the contractor shall coordinate the return of the equipment
provided to the contracting authority.
CR.04 Contractor shall validate all control points provided by the contracting authority. 
117

NCHRP Project 10-77

CR.05 The contractor shall establish secondary control points at locations along the length of the project 
and outside the project limits and/or where work is performed beyond the project limits as
required by the AMG system utilized. The contractor shall comply with the requirements outlined
in standard specifications and contract documents. A copy of all new control point information
shall be provided to the contracting authority prior to construction activities. The contractor shall
be responsible for all errors resulting from their efforts and shall correct deficiencies to the
satisfaction of the contracting authority and at no additional cost to the contracting authority.
CR.06 The Contractor shall provide controls points and conventional grade stakes at critical points such 
as, but not limited to, PC’s, PT’s, super elevation points, and other critical points required for the
construction of drainage and roadway structures.
CR.07 The site calibration shall be checked daily at control points not used in the calibration. 
CR.08 Control points shall be staggered on either side of the highway to provide a good strength of 
figure.
CR.09 The contractor shall preserve all reference points and monuments that are established by the 
contracting authority outside the construction limits. If the contractor fails to preserve these items,
they shall be re-established by the contractor to their original quality at no additional cost to the
contracting authority.
CR.10 The contractor shall set grade stakes and hubs meeting the requirements outlined in the standard 
specifications and contract documents such that the contracting authority can check the accuracy
of the construction.
CR.11 The Contractor shall submit a comprehensive written AMG work plan to the contracting authority 
for review at least 30 days prior to use. The submittal of the AMG work plan shall be an indication
of the contractor's intention to utilize AMG instead of conventional methods on the project areas
and elements stated in the work plan. The contracting authority shall review the AMG work plan
to ensure that the requirements are addressed. The contractor shall assume total responsibility for
the performance of the system utilized in the work plan. Any update or alteration of the AMG
work plan during the work shall be approved and submitted to the contracting authority for
determination of conformance with requirements. The AMG work plan shall describe how the
AMG technology will be integrated into other technologies employed on the project. This shall
include, but not limited to, the following:
1. A description of the manufacturer, model, and software version of the AMG equipment.
2. Information on the contractor's experience in the use of AMG systems to be used on the
project, including formal training and field experience of project staff.
3. The primary contact, and up to one alternate, for AMG technology issues.
4. A definition of the project boundaries and scope of work to be accomplished with the
AMG system.
5. A description of how the project proposed secondary control(s) is to be established.
Include a list and map detailing control points enveloping the site.
6. A description of site calibration procedures including, but not limited to, equipment
calibration, frequency of calibration, and information to be documented. The
documentation shall contain a complete record of when and where the tests were
performed and the status of each equipment item tested within or out of the ranges of
required tolerances.
7. A description of the contractor's QC procedures, including frequency and type, for
checking mechanical calibration and maintenance of equipment.
8. A description of the method and frequency of field verification checks and the
submission schedule of results.
9. A contingency plan in the event of failure/outage of the AMG system.
10. A schedule of DTMs intended for use on the project. This shall be submitted for review,
feedback, and communication.
118

NCHRP Project 10-77

A. At least two week prior to the preconstruction conference, the contractor shall 
submit to the contracting authority for review a written AMG work plan which
shall include the equipment type, control software manufacturer and version, types
of work to be completed using AMG, project site calibration report, repetitive
Option (A calibration methods for construction equipment and rover units to be used for the
or B) duration of the project, and local GPS base station to be used for broadcasting
differential correction data to rover units.
B. One week prior to the start of grading operations the Contractor shall meet with 
the contracting authority to review the grading plans, quality processes, and
tolerance requirements.
CR.12 If the contractor selects to use AMG for fine grading and placement of base or other roadway 
materials, the AMG system shall use a laser or robotic total station. Details of the methods and
equipment shall be included in the AMG Work Plan
CR.13 The contractor shall use the alignment and control data provided by contracting authority. No 
localization methods will be accepted.
CR.14 The contractor shall provide the contracting authority with electronic as-built construction data for 
the projects final construction record in a format acceptable to the contracting authority.
CR.15 The contractor shall be responsible for converting the information on the plans and/or electronic 
data file provided by contracting authority into a format compatible with the contractor's AMG
system.

CR.16 It is the contractor's responsibility to produce the DTMs and/or 3D line work needed for AMG
system, field verify the data for accuracy and conformance to the contract plans <<, and
immediately report any errors to contracting authority>>.
Option (Y Provide design surface DTM information to the contracting authority in a format
or N) specified by the contract documentation.

CR.17 Revise the design surface DTM as required to support construction operations and to reflect any
contract plan revisions. Perform checks to confirm DTM revisions agree with the contract plan
revisions. Provide a copy of the revised design surface DTM to the contracting authority in the
format defined in the contract documents.

CR.18 The contractor shall meet the same accuracy requirements as detailed in the standard
specifications.

CR.19 The contractor shall check and recalibrate, if necessary, their AMG system at the beginning of
each work day to ensure compliance with contract documents.

CR.20 Grade stakes shall be established as per the standard specifications for use by the contracting
authority to check the accuracy of the construction.

CR.21 The contractor shall bear all costs, including but not limited to the cost of actual reconstruction
work that may be incurred due to errors in application of AMG techniques or manipulation of
design data in the DTM.

CR.22 The contractor shall be responsible for any edits or conversions of the contracting agencies
electronic data whether done by the contractor or a vendor that is hired by the contractor to
perform such edits or conversions.

CR.23 When AMG methods are used for any construction surveying, a licensed surveyor shall be
provided by the contractor to perform verification of the final as-constructed grade report.

CR.24 All changes by the contractor to the DTM data shall be submitted to the contracting authority for
approval prior to use.
119

NCHRP Project 10-77


CR.25 Any information provided by contracting authority shall not be released to any other party,
corporation, business or organization except a consultant engineering firm which is employed by
the contractor for work on this project. The consulting engineering firm must agree not to release
the information to any other party, corporation, business or organization.

CR.26 The contractor shall provide any information or data that is requested by the contracting authority
for performing the verification of quantities and quality.
CR.__ Other: 
Comments: 
Item Section: Method of Measurement (M) 

M.01 The bid item for AMG grading will be measured and paid for at the lump sum contract price. 
Option (Y or No direct payment will be made for work required to utilize this provision. All
N) work will be considered incidental to various grading operations.
M.02 Earthwork volumes shall be computed by comparing and computing the difference in volumes 
between the existing terrain model, constructed terrain model, and final constructed terrain model
whichever is applicable at the time necessary.
M.03 The contracting authority will pay for costs incurred to incorporate contract plan revisions as extra 
work.
M.__ Other: 
Comments: 
Item Section: Payment (P) 
120

NCHRP Project 10-77
Item Section: Payment (P) 

P.01 The bid item for AMG grading will be paid for at the lump sum contract price. This payment shall 
be full compensation for all work associated with preparing the electronic data files for use in the
contractor’s AMG system, the required system check and needed recalibration, training for the
Engineer, and all other items described in the standard specifications.
Option (Y or The contract lump sum price bid shall include full compensation for all such 
N) surveying work including but not limited to: (1) Materials, (2) Equipment, (3)
Labor, (4) Office work (preparing the electronic data files for use in the
Contactor’s machine control grading system, developing or building a DTM to
facilitate the GPS machine control grading system, and all other calculations
required to complete the work), (5) Test section as specified by the Project
Engineer, (6) Training for <<agency >>project personnel, and (7) Final as-
constructed grade report.
P.02 Delays due to satellite reception of signals to operate the GPS machine control system will not 
result in adjustment to the "Basis of Payment" for any construction items or be justification for
granting contract extensions.
P.__ Other: 
Comments: 
121

NCHRP Project 10-77
CHECKLIST OF QC/QA FACTORS
In addition to the guide specification tool, a list of QC/QA factors was developed based on the
survey results, literature review, specification reviews, and interviews with agency and contractor
personnel. The workflow processes associated with these factors are described in Chapter 2. The list of
contributory factors is arranged by a process heading and several sub-processes. Procedures to address
these factors need to be integrated into design manual, polices, standards, specifications, and training.
Table 9-1 and 9-2 discussed earlier identified error and mitigation factors for several of these processes.
Initial Data Collection to Develop DTMs
• Selection of surveying approach for overall control (Geodetic vs. Cartesian Coordinate)
• Choices regarding tie in with local, state, or global coordinate systems.
• Accuracy of initial surveying control points.
• Accuracy of the positioning. system that is being used to collect survey data (GPS, total
station, traditional)
• Quality of data collection hardware and software.
• Density of position measurements.
• Accuracy of judgment regarding the collection of break line data.
• Absence or presence of operator/human error in data input and manipulation (can be
improved with training).
• The amount of manual manipulation required.
Model Development for Design Purposes
• Possible changes to preconstruction data between times that original preconstruction data was
collected and when construction starts.
• Quality of the design
- Conformance with agency needs
- Accuracy
- Density of pattern lines
• Whether initial design modeling is set up to allow seamless transfer designer to constructor.
- 2D or 3D modeling
- Details of labeling, layering and other technical details of CADD modeling
• Completeness of design in complicated areas (shared with model enhancement for
construction purposes, because these details may be added by either the designer or the
constructor).
- Intersections
- Gore areas
- Merges
- Culvert entrances and exits
- Bridge berms
- Widen shoulders for guard rails and other appurtenances
• Accuracy of output of design software.
122

NCHRP Project 10-77
Model Enhancement for Construction Purposes
• Quality of construction modeling software

• Completeness of design in complicated areas (shared with modeling, because these details
may be added by either the designer or the constructor).
- Intersections
- Gore areas
- Merges
- Culvert entrances and exits
- Bridge berms
- Widen shoulders for guard rails and other appurtenances

• Communication between the construction modeler and the design modeler.
Manipulation of AMG Files for Construction Operations
• Proper installation of AMG project files on machine (includes version control of AMG files)
• Absence or presence of operator/human error in using machine mounted AMG equipment
(can be improved with training).
• Establishment of jobsite control network.
• Proper set up of base stations, if GPS is used; proper set up of robotic total stations and/or
lasers if robotic total stations are being used.
• Calibration of the job site.
• Calibration of machine - link between source of position information: GPS, laser or total
station, and AMG hardware.
• Link between AMG hardware and ground or pavement engaging equipment.
• Balance of stability, smoothness and response time the system that control the movement of
ground or pavement engaging equipment.
• Communication between the construction modeler and construction field personnel.
Manipulation of AMG Files for QA/QC
• Proper installation of AMG project files on rover (includes version control of 3D construction
model files).
• Absence or presence of operator/human error in data input and manipulation (consider
amount of manual manipulation required).
• Establishment of jobsite control network.
• Proper set up of base stations and other positioning equipment (including robotic total
stations and lasers.
• Calibration of inspection equipment (most likely rovers, if GPS is used) with job site control
• Links between source of position information (GPS, laser or total station) and QA/QC
inspection equipment.
123

NCHRP Project 10-77

• Communication between the construction modeler, designer and QA/QC personnel.
124

NCHRP Project 10-77
CHAPTER 11: FUTURE OF AMG IN INFRASTRUCUTRE

CONSTRUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Rapid technological developments are propelling AMG towards new capabilities that are
agencies, contractors, and equipment providers. New paradigms are emerging for conceptualizing sites,
designing new and different projects, constructing projects, and ultimately using and maintaining them.
The future of AMG is one that will likely be abundant with innovative technologies, with advanced
software, improved data interoperability, and new autonomous machine capabilities. To fully benefit,
these developments must be stewarded proactively by a broadly inclusive AMG owner-designer-
surveyor-engineer-construction community. How this community interact and work together is yet to be
defined, but may require new models, training, and even development of new educational
disciplines/professions.
The following highlights some of the emerging AMG technologies and presents a creative
consider the future at what might be possible. Whatever the future AMG landscape looks like, it will
require planning and new ways of interaction to garner the full potential of this technology. New
partnerships, research and development, and training across the AMG community will be key to
accelerating AMG innovation. Also, building of discussion elsewhere in this report is the topic of data
interoperability and future needs.
EMERGING AMG TECHNOLOGIES
This section of the report highlights technologies identified from the information review and
expert contact group that are emerging AMG technologies. Figure 11-1 shows the GEOPAK/Inroads
being used for 3D designs. This tool generates the 3D surface first, then 2D cross sections are generated
later for sheeting and earthwork process. 3D design is an important cornerstone of the AMG process and
is still emerging within agencies as identified in the project survey. Many agencies are in the process of
considering 3D design and developing internal guidelines for it use.
Figure 11-1 Example 3D Design Software used to Generate 2D Cross Sections (courtesy Brian
Smith, Iowa DOT)
125

NCHRP Project 10-77
Figure 11-2 shows color plans. Although it may not seem like a significant departure from black
and white plans, the concept of color is to add an additional dimension to the information conveyed in
plan sheets. The colors shown in the plans are attributes with stored information as follows:
• Light brown is the area that is getting graded
• Green is the existing pavement in this stage
• Blue represents the proposed paving in this stage
• Red represents drainage and sign structures
• Cross hatching shows the pavement removal areas
(a)
(b)
Figure 11-2 Example of Color-Coded Plans (a) Plan View (b) Alignment with Geotechnical
Information (courtesy Brian Smith, Iowa DOT).
126

NCHRP Project 10-77
Figure 11-3 shows yet another application of color sheets with a photo and line drawings to
highlight a construction feature. Color in this case makes it easier to see the orange line, soil types, and
vegetation. Although it may not seem like a significant innovation, use of color as part of design drawings
has been limited due to concerns about reproduction, users’ ability to see distinction between colors, and
overall reliance on color being consistently presented through all phases of design and construction.
(a)
(b)
Figure 11-3 Example of Black and White versus Color Design Sheet with Notes (courtesy Brian
Smith, Iowa DOT).
Figure 11-4 shows the application of not only integrating color imagery, but linking the
geospatial data in the image to x, y, z coordinates as captured from a stationary terrestrial laser scanner.
Laser scanners are becoming less expensive, easier to use, and hold greater potential for integration into
site evaluation, as-built recording, and design processes. Data generated from airborne LIDAR are also
increasing becoming available for large area model generation, volumetric calculations, corridor mapping,
and other engineering applications. Figure 11-5 shows examples of LIDAR imagery for defining a
corridor and for large area flood mapping. The seemingly data rich environment of the future will
facilitate innovative ways of implementing AMG technologies.
127

NCHRP Project 10-77
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 11-4. Laser Scan Images showing (a) Integrated Digital Color Photo with x, y, z Geospatial
Coordinates (b) Rendering for Volume Calculations, and (c) Digital Image with x, y, z Coordinates
and Calculated 2 ft Contour Intervals (images courtesy CEER, ISU).
128

NCHRP Project 10-77
Figure 11-5. LIDAR Application to (a) Map Corridor, and (b) Define Larger Area Flooding
(images courtesy of Iowa DOT).
Figure 11-6 shows yet a further application of modeling complex geometries, which have been
sources of uncertainty with AMG construction equipment due in part to lack of data. Powerful software
tools are allowing for improved fidelity in model surfaces. In the future, these types of constraints should
be virtually eliminated by knowledgeable designers. Using the model data, visual renders are also
contributing to the AMG process. Figure 11-7 shows an example of a project rendering that was used for
meeting to provide a clear representation of the project to the public. The visual nature of these renderings
will facilitate important ways for communicating complex projects. It is even possible now to present the
results with a polymer formed or printed physical scaled model.
Figure 11-8 presents yet another evolution of the AMG process where multi-dimensional
computer simulations allow users to embed themselves into the project and operate equipment to develop
project level experience. This concept has the potential to allow both the designer and the contractor to
optimize the building process. Unfortunately, there is very little theory developed to optimize and
automate the site level construction processes.
Figure 11-9 shows a relatively low cost unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), or drone, with a high
definition remote controlled camera. These devices hold promise for providing up-to-date color imagery
of construction projects and getting information in challenging conditions, for example, a landslide. Use
of these types of devices remains somewhat controversial due to privacy issues and partially restricted by
FAA guidelines (see https://www.faa.gov/uas/).
Figure 11-10 shows an image that illustrates the concept of integrating terrain information into
visualization and adding data analytic capabilities to process productivity information and various
machines. Data is available via wireless and mobile platforms. The emerging future of AMG is one
supported by easy access to data via the cloud and wireless devices. By making the data available in the
cloud it allows multiple users to access information real-time. Figure 11-11 shows how intelligent
compaction data is collected via wireless cellular and displayed on a server with Google Earth in the
background. This process occurs in near real-time allowing multiple users to access the information via a
password protect website.
129

NCHRP Project 10-77
Figure 11-6. Examples of 3D Surface Renderings showing Complex Geometries (courtesy of

McAnich Corporation and Iowa DOT)
Figure 11-7. 3D Rendering and Visualization of Project (courtesy Brian Smith, Iowa DOT)
130

NCHRP Project 10-77
Figure 11-8. Simulated Construction Environment that Allows User to Operate Machine (image
courtesy X,Y,Z Solutions)
Figure 11-9. Inexpensive UAV with High Definition Camera.
131

NCHRP Project 10-77
Figure 11-10. Integrated Data Analytics and Mobile Viewing (image courtesy of AGTEK).
Figure 11-11. Intelligent Compaction data as viewed from On-line Viewer (image courtesy of
Trimble).
Beyond the emerging advances with software modeling, simulation, and different ways of
collecting and visualization information, machine systems continue to improve and advance opportunities
to implement AMG solutions. Although now commonplace in earthwork operations, paving (PCC and
HMA), milling, joint cutting, and excavation are all emerging AMG solutions (Figure 11-12).
Figure 11-13 shows the application of a relatively new stringless paving process. This innovation
is making it more feasible to do the white topping projects (Harrington, 2010) and eliminate the need to
setup string lines. Eliminating string lines reduces staging areas and improves safety among other
benefits. The equipment and field application of PCC stringless paving is discussed in Cable et al. (2009).
For many of these technologies it is innovative equipment manufacturers that are developing
AMG concepts and will continue to be the drivers behind modern technology for the foreseeable future.
132

NCHRP Project 10-77
Figure 11-12. Examples of AMG Machine Application.
133

NCHRP Project 10-77
(a)
(b)
Figure 11-13. AMG Application for PCC Paving (a) Site Level Setup and Equipment, and (b) PCC
Stringless Paving Operations (images courtesy of Dale Harrington).
THE FUTURE AMG PROFESSIONAL
As discussed in Chapter 6, educational and training opportunity are provided by several sources,
yet no sole source delivers all the required training. Several AMG stakeholders have realized the
importance of training for the future success of AMG. Currently, FHWA hosts a website that promotes
information for 3D engineering modeling (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/3d/). The website
includes information on web-based training, webinars, workshops, field demonstrations, and has experts
to serve their technical support center. Several concise technical briefs are provided. This program was
established because of the “potential to cost-effectively accelerate highway pavement construction.” This
134

NCHRP Project 10-77
program was primarily designed to support the needs of agency design engineers and agency AMG
implementers. AASHTO’s Technology Implementation Group also supports a website with basic
information about AMG, AMG benefits, agency contacts, and small library of information
(http://aii.transportation.org/Pages/AutomatedMachineGuidance.aspx)
The way a road is designed, engineering and constructed today, is in a sequential and
compartmentalized fashion. The disparate, sequential and compartmentalized fashion in which design,
engineering and construction tasks place is inefficient and is the result of non-technical factors. The future
picture that is developing is of an AMG process that is a seamless integration from project begin at the
design concept phase, that progresses iteratively through design development and pre-design phases to
bid documentation and beyond.
DATA, STANDARDIZATION, AND INTEROPERABILITY
As discussed elsewhere in this report, there is a need for new standards for representing sites, so
that AMG can dislodge itself from iteratively re-inventing the wheel when it comes to site data formats
and data interoperability. Developing a coherent standard for data can enable an iterative link between the
design phases of a project and on-site construction. This bottleneck is the central challenge to enhancing
interoperability between the components that comprise AMG.
Remarkably, contour lines remain the topographic representation of choice also in the digital
medium. Contour lines have been the standard for relief topographic representation for several centuries.
They were developed primarily as a static representation of relief, first underwater (bathymetric lines),
then on land (Konvitz, 1987). The AMG community is unique in its need to work between existing and
proposed states of a project. While the contour line will live on in the palette of options, there is an
opportunity to develop new standards now for the digital medium; to arrive at a new representation of
topography for the 21st Century, and one that will fill the AMG community’s needs to work iteratively
between existing and proposed:
Contour lines have survived because they satisfy the following criteria:
1) 3D
2) compact/portable
3) editable
4) quantitatively accurate
5) reproducible
Yet they suffer some serious disadvantages (Weibel, 1987 and 1992):
1) Planimetric
2) They are a secondary data source (reduced accuracy, cartographic generalization, etc.)
3) Interpolation: Contours are above all a graphical method of relief depiction, but a very poor
sampling method.
4) Oversampling along contours, undersampling across
5) Terrain shape must be inferred in a holistic search process across multiple contours.
To exploit this split, one can imagine an intermediate data type that represents the set of proposed
geometries considered for a design, which can exist separately from the existing and proposed site data.
What might these be? Here we have a proposed site design that consists of a set of line segments. The
advantages of line segments over known topographic data formats (e.g., xyz points, grids, contour lines,
TIN, TRN) are that line segments are:
1. Compact,
2. Simple and intuitive,
3. A uniquely digital solution, not an automation of analog methods,
4. Separate intermediate data descriptions of site change that decouple internal from external
representations,
135

NCHRP Project 10-77
5. Mathematically equivalent so geometric control is achieved (i.e., 1 path + 1 blade = exactly

1 surface), and
6. Another criterion for geometric control because any geometry can be achieved with the blade
+ path metaphor.
This is a brief discussion of geometric representation, but similar discussions are necessary for
analysis, visualization, and project management issues (among others). These will most probably involve
taking on Big Data, as solutions will require exceptional technologies to efficiently process large
quantities of data within tolerable elapsed times. Real or near-real time information delivery is one of the
defining characteristics of big data analytics. AMG participation in these developments will be key to the
success both interoperationally and algorithmically.
AMG IN THE FUTURE: CONCEPT FOR LAND DRONES
How far can AMG be pushed to safely automate the road building process? The following is an
account of what the future may have in store for AMG. Imagine a land drone that is part Mars Rover (Fig.
11-14), part autonomous vehicle, part docking station, part wireless information hub, part land laboratory.
Figure 11-14. Autonomous Mars Rover (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120806-

mars-landing-curiosity-rover-nasa-jpl-science/)
Like the Mars Rover the AMG land drone is remotely maneuverable over many kids of terrain. It
is tough from the point of view of weather and elements. It can operate day or night, continuously round
the clock. It is heavier than a Mars Rover, and has a different mobility system, where it rolls or creeps,
and has more agility and degrees of freedom than traditional earthmoving equipment. The central part is
the “brain” of the unit. Its perimeter may change in a modular fashion like a docking station, which may
receive or deposit tools, samples, information, and in general interact with the world physically. Shovels,
graders, paving “trailers”, etc. could be docked with n configurable alternative combination.
The central brain would possess the system’s center of gravity, and would “know” how to
use/wield/control its modular changeable docked parts. The central brain could also serve as a mobile lab
to monitor analyze air/soil/core samples from its environment. It would also control position, precision,
navigation, speed, etc. The modules docked onto the drone’s perimeter would either be pre-equipped for a
specific project site, or shovels or equipment or lab samples could be added or exchanged from locally
sited drone portals.
136

NCHRP Project 10-77
The AMGP would drive and control the system remotely from the safety and comfort at a remote
location observing and driving like how an airline pilot flies an airplane. Engagement would be passive or
intensely active depending on task complexity and conditions.
The drone would be involved from project inception of the “simple road” with route planning and
testing and analysis and mapping, and through design development and testing, and iterative passes of
construction. It would also play a role in post-construction monitoring and surveying and failure detection
and road repair. The system would be designed for obstacle avoidance and safe operations.
Data flow would be to and from the cloud to the drone, where data would be backed up,
processed analyzed, distributed. Multiple or single machines could access and participate in a project in a
distributed fashion; multiple land drones could be operational simultaneously.
For the simple road to be designed and built, a route first needs to be determined. At the same
time, preliminary designs for the road profile and its key features are being developed or adapted. These
tasks occur with high precision real-time updated multi-dimensional imagery and digital models
exchanged with the cloud by the AMGP team to and from the land drone unit. A multi-dimensional
interactive environment is used, where quantitative, qualitative and iterative correction and revisions are
closely integrated. Tasks being accomplished include:
• Survey and mapping of existing conditions,
• Survey and mapping of alternative routes,
• Cadaster research,
• Imminent domain application and acquisition,
• Design development,
• Construction planning, and
• Construction execution,
• Post-construction review and
• Maintenance tasks, including
• Failure detection and repair at varying time points after project completion.
Each task possesses both a remote “file” component and an active site component, which can be
remotely achieved with the land drone. The look and feel of the GUI available to the AMGP for site
design would possess three main characteristics:
1. See 3D: The ability to visualize and interactively see a multi-dimensional model of the site
or project area of interest, including at a minimum:
a. Topography,
b. Water systems,
c. Plant systems, and
d. Weather/phenomenological effects.
2. Control 3D: The ability to geometrically edit/manipulate/sculpt/modify/control user-

specifiable sub-areas of the model. The AMGP uses a site design toolbox that consists of
three categories of tools:
a. Library of Shape Primitives: library of parameterized forms, both found and constructed.
For example, for topography:
i. a set of exit ramps,
ii. a set of drainage culvert geometric features
iii. a set of embankment geometries based on soil type, etc.
b. Operators: functionality to edit/modify site geometry. Translate, rotate, rescale, extrude,
skin, patch, clip, trim, copy, Boolean add/subtract/maximize/minimize, exaggerate, warp,
morph, merge, knit, append, etc.
c. Simulations within a dynamic, real-world physically based site context near or far from
the project. Iteratively evaluate options to evaluate scale, slope, comfort, aesthetics, etc.
137

NCHRP Project 10-77
3. Analyze 3D: The. look and feel Geospatial mapping example. The ability to analyze these sub-
areas in several key respects, including:
a. Cut fill volume quantities, balance calculations and balance recommendations,
b. Slope,
c. Geotechnical aspects (soils, structure, stability, suitability, recommendations)
d. Line of site,
e. Drainage, including highest points, lowest points, drainage channels, drainage basins,
storm-water run-off,
f. ADA compliance, and
g. Geospatial mapping.
Unlike Euclidean geometries found in architecture, and translated rather easily and directly into
BIM and CAD, the geometry of the landscape, and the parameterization of these geometries remains a
non-trivial algorithmic challenge, and is a key research area. Perhaps, not enough people in the
engineering and affiliated AMG professions yet appreciate what a bottleneck these representational
challenges represent to progress.
Computing offers tighter integration of these ideas into the iterative design cycle. And this is not
just at the workstation, rather the technical integration of field-based heavy equipment and tools means,
they too may become part and parcel to the iterative cycle (“end-to-end” AMG capability). This is
unprecedented and represents some transformational possibilities in:
• The way we work,
• The way we conceive of sites, roads, what gets built and
• How a design is built, and ultimately
• How a design functions in the landscape and how it is experienced.
AMG CONTRIBUTION TO SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainability and the integration of natural process dynamics and ecological health principles in
the AMG process is emergent and will only feature more prominently, as these technologies are looked to
as powerful partners to protect and steward environmental health. Example: Linearization of the
landscape. CE’s and LA’s are always accused of linearizing the landscape. Perhaps this is because
ecological health remains difficult to represent computationally. Visually and in other ways. Simulation
of physically-based dynamic ecological systems, therefore, and the novel representational challenges that
are being developed will be key to the eventual acceptance and sphere of influence AMG will have.
Sustainability priorities will carry the day.
CONCLUSIONS
Several emerging AMG technologies are making it possible to collect, analyze, and visualize,
data, and automate processes. Increasingly, position measurement capabilities and automated features are
being integrated into construction machines. Software advancements are making data interoperability
better and the future is seemingly very bright for AMG innovations.
Computers are uniquely suited to crunching numbers, which allows repetitive and quantitative
aspects of tasks to be automated. When the algorithms available to future AMGPs are sufficiently robust
and versatile, specialized training (e.g., in volume calculations, geotechnical structure stability, asphalt
mix composition, etc.) need not be the sole purview of the traditionally trained professional in these areas.
Appropriate “friendly” tools may be available on the AMGP’s desktop that incorporate checks and
balances to protect against error. In fact, human error could be minimized in similar ways that the
automated cars will reduce the number of human-induced vehicular accidents that occur on highways
nationwide.
138

NCHRP Project 10-77
Technology will enable these changes. The AMG community should embrace this potential,
rather than see it as threatening. A way to embrace it is to set aside traditional domain loyalties and
collaborate to imagine an interdisciplinary scenario that would serve the best interests of building the next
generation of roads (building sites, mining pit, etc.).
Implications for this include:
• New road types and template standards may be possible
• A different configuration of stakeholders …
• A more adaptable and inclusive process
• Smaller footprint of disturbance, thus more sustainable and environmentally responsive.
• FAMGP training will be different – interdisciplinary with an underlying dominance of
• IT skills and algorithm design will prove to be most influential on progress in AMG
139

NCHRP Project 10-77
CHAPTER 12: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Products developed from this research, including the guidelines and guide specifications can be
implemented immediately. State DOTs will primarily implement these products improved AMG
workflow processes and through letting of projects with AMG specifications. In the short term, state
DOTs could implement AMG specifications on a limited basis as “special provisions” to existing and
upcoming demonstration projects. Field demonstrations and on-site seminars on AMG technology and
guide specifications delivered by the research team will further facilitate technology transfer/training and
speed up the implementation process.
As with any new specifications, for effective implementation, state DOTs, designers, and
contractor agencies (e.g., trade associations such as Associated of General Contractors of America and its
local chapters) will have to buy into and champion the AMG specifications. Ultimately, the success of
AMG implementation can be evaluated by observing the number of states and projects that use AMG
specifications.
From a much broader perspective, and consistent with the research objectives, we believe that the
collaborative methodology outlined in this research approach, making use of strategic stakeholder
meetings and expert contacts, provides the best means of developing consensus and having sufficient
impact on current practice to greatly expand the use of AMG technologies for transportation construction
projects.
The results of this research effort will be directly applicable in practice in the following ways:
• State DOTs and contractors will be able to utilize the findings from this study immediately as
guidance for making informed decisions about how AMG technologies and guide
specifications can be used to improve earthwork construction operations. Because we are
involving stakeholders in the development of AMG guide specifications, we believe that the
developed specifications will be flexible and could be adopted by any state.
• The findings from the study also provide state DOTs with valuable information regarding
digital terrain modeling, electronic 3D design model development and enhancements for use
in construction operations including AMG. In addition, these findings can be implemented
immediately to develop guidelines for earthwork construction QA/QC.
• The recommendations for AMG guide specification will provide consistency among the
various manufacturer technologies, thus eliminating bias towards a specific technology and
enabling the users to select from the wide range of manufacturers.
Organized by subject heading the following points summary additional key findings from this
research.
AMG WORKSHOP
• The AMG Stakeholder Workshop contributed directly to the needed outcomes of this study.
The objective of the meetings was to develop a list of capabilities that must exist and
obstacles that must be overcome to facilitate seamless electronic data transfer from the initial
surveying to the development of DTMs through design and construction to final inspection
and verification.
• The outcomes of this workshop covered topics of (1) legal impacts, (2) development of 3D
files, (3) accuracy best practices and inputs/outputs, (4) bid item quantity, (5) review of the
proposed survey objectives and questions, and (6) training information requests are presented
herein. Based on a complete review of the comments, a top 10 list of challenges/opportunities
was developed and is presented in the full report in Appendix A.
140

NCHRP Project 10-77
AMG WORKFLOW PROCESSES
• A set of simplified workflow diagrams and narratives was presented to reflect the spectrum of
processes and technologies that are organized according to these topics:
- Surveying preparation workflow processes,
- Roadway design workflow processes,
- Contractor data preparation workflow processes, and
- Overall integrated AMG workflow processes.
• The accompanying narrative attempts to concisely describe the processes involved with the
workflow steps first to establish a baseline for the remainder of the report, and, second, to
appreciate that AMG is best positioned to succeed when survey, design, and construction
processes are coordinated. Understanding these AMG workflow processes is also important
for developing effective guide specifications for implementing AMG where critical roles and
responsibilities can be defined.
INFORMATION REVIEW
• The research team constructed a searchable electronic library of information related to AMG
and supporting technologies. The project’s bibliography currently contains more than 370
documents that range from peer-reviewed academic papers to specifications to transportation
agency directives to manufacturer specific videos and others. The use of AMG technology is
relatively new, and our study confirmed that the AMG literature base is not as mature as that
of more-established technologies and procedures. As such, academic papers accounted for
only 28% of the information sources in the AMP project bibliography. Documents collected
by the team range in date from 2000 to 2014.
• Even though information on AMG does not appear to have a large base of formally published
papers, significant information was garnered through AMG-specific and -related websites and
from slides from presentations at meetings held by transportation agencies, software and
hardware vendors, and contractors. A detailed annotated bibliography and list of AMG
specifications was generated from the information and literature review. In addition, a lexicon
of terms used in AMG was developed and is reported in this chapter and is used through the
remainder of this report.
• One of the key outcomes from the information and literature review was that there is very
limited independently studied information that quantifies AMG machine-level performance
or site-level construction efficiency gains for AMG projects. These areas require more
research to fully understand the benefits of using AMG and related technologies in
construction processes.
• The AMG information and literature that the team collected were initially organized in an
electronic EndNote® database as a searchable and shareable annotated bibliographic record
for the research team. As a result, the most important outcome of this portion of the project
may be the ability to widely share this bibliography.
• One outcome of the information review was a lexicon of AMG related terms (more than 30
terms) that can serve the basis for AMG terminology.
SURVEY OUTCOMES
• The project research team developed a detailed plan and conducted (upon NCHRP approval)
a worldwide survey to determine what types of software and equipment are currently being
141

NCHRP Project 10-77
used to implement AMG processes. The survey involved these stakeholders: State
transportation agencies, Software vendors, Equipment vendors, and Contractors
• The survey covered these topics: Current drafting and design software capabilities, Types of
electronic files that are submitted to contractors (such as .dgn, .dwg, .dtm, .tin, and LandXML
files), When these files are made available to the contractors (such as pre-bid or post-award),
Equipment capabilities and reliability, Perceived benefits and liabilities of AMG processes
• Based on lessons learned from four information surveys, the research team conducted the
work required for the survey using an Internet browser-based software application. A
complete summarization of the survey results can be found in Appendix D.
• A total of 504 people responded in whole or in part to the eight targeted surveys developed in
this phase of the research. From these surveys information was garnered from a sample of all
major AMG stakeholder groups, helping to define the current state of the industry. The
project team developed separate survey questions for the various stakeholder groups, based
on internal collaboration and the literature collected to date.
• Survey outcomes are presented in the report. The analysis results are primarily descriptive
statistics and provide new insights into the development of this newly emerged technology.
LEGAL BARRIERS
• The use of AMG technology in construction contracting has created changes in business
work processes and contract delivery processes, affecting all the contract stakeholders. Some
legal mechanism is needed to bridge the implied design warranty concerns (Spearin doctrine)
and the ability to include EED as part of the contract documents. Currently, liability waivers
and clauses are performing this function, in part, but it is yet to be tested in the courts,
according to our research.
• The work process changes, resulting in functional role changes, have proceeded faster than
the regulatory and legal systems have accommodated. A standard definition of professional
roles is needed across all the state license boards, which would help to define the “responsible
charge” of the various professional stakeholders. Perhaps after this project, NCHRP could
make recommendations to the NCEES for their Model Law document (NCEES, 2009), which
is intended to “be used as a reference work in the preparation of amendments to existing
legislation or in the preparation of new proposed laws. The intent of NCEES in preparing this
document is to present to the jurisdictions a sound and realistic guide that will provide greater
uniformity of qualifications for licensure, to raise these qualifications to a higher level of
accomplishment, and to simplify the interstate licensure of engineers and surveyors.”
• Defining professional roles will also require a standardized definition of EED, including what
it is not to be used for. The Proposal for Use of EED in Construction created in 2008 by a
joint AGC/DOT subcommittee does not address professional roles or duties, nor does it
address contractual context. From the AGC document, EED is defined as, “In the civil
segment of the construction industry, a three-dimensional representation (surface model) of
what is to be constructed. Includes all types of capital project related engineering data which
is used for defining, developing, designing, documenting, spatially locating, constructing, and
historical recording.”
• The good news, according to our project surveys, is that despite the legal hurdles, those with
AMG experience perceive that it improves the spirit of cooperation between the contract
stakeholders, through improved constructability communications. The project surveys have
also indicated that the perception of liability regarding the exchange of EED is quite low.
142

NCHRP Project 10-77
AMG TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES
• Good training programs will be necessary for stakeholders to maintain productivity and
accuracy on AMG projects. An especially critical need exists for training on 3D modeling
and project control points.
• Training is provided by several various sources; however, no one source provides all the
training necessary for AMG implementation. A considerable number of self-paced online
opportunities are available, especially for learning about software. Meanwhile, hands-on,
instructor-led opportunities predominate for equipment operation and using positioning
hardware. Educational institutions are beginning to include AMG in their curriculums;
however, educational goals are more general and focused on awareness and training is
focused on execution. Therefore, AMG stakeholders must continue to train personnel to
provide a solid foundation to existing and new members on their AMG teams.
DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN MODELS – BEST PRACTICES
• Success in 3D site modeling is central to the success of AMG. Changing from 2D to 3D

modeling comes with many important challenges in a variety of aspects, including training,
workflow alteration, and clarifications or adjustments in professional practice. Two years of
training and staged implementation may be required to completely switch from 2D to 3D
design (Hixson, 2010; Vonderohe et al., 2010). A design team would have to complete three
3D projects before it reaches the returns of its accustomed level of productivity (using 2D
methods)—and productivity would never exceed that of 2D modeling (Hixson, 2010).
However, the product provided by the design team would be vastly improved (Hixson, 2010).
• Changing from 2D to 3D modeling comes with important benefits, including better
communication and error checking with internal and external stakeholders, less effort re-
entering data from one phase of design and construction to the next, greater efficiency in
construction, and site efficiency benefits, such as allowing the contractor to use the 3D model
for cost estimating, development of means and methods, and for productivity tracking. Other
incidental benefits include using the 3D model framework for as-built, QA and QC records,
and after the project is completed, using it for maintenance and operational information
storage, such as locations and dates of maintenance activities and crash-incident analysis.
• Accuracy considerations are important in providing survey data and for developing the
model. Compared to traditional methods, AMG will require more accuracy in more places
because construction workers will not be able to fit construction by eye between locations
where stakes exist. Compared to traditional methods of construction, AMG will require a
greater density of preconstruction survey data collection and greater densities for pattern line
locations during modeling. The need for accuracy must be balanced with requirements for
data storage and manipulation capabilities in the modeling and construction processes.
• Decisions regarding how data is transferred from one part of the AMG process to another are
important. Having all stakeholders cooperatively build and modify the 3D model would
provide a seamless method of data transfer. However, such a practice raises important
questions regarding design responsibility and the division between activities that must be
performed under the supervision of a licensed individual and those that can be performed
without such supervision. For example, if more than one licensed individual supervises the
modeling effort, communication will be required to clarify which person has responsibility in
each specific area.
143

NCHRP Project 10-77
• For a contractor, the most important layers of a 3D model are the existing and proposed
surfaces and line work for the proposed facility. Considerable contractor effort can be saved
by giving them access to the 3D models developed by designers. However, legal and
professional issues often restrict contractors from gaining such access. Contractors often
detail areas that are hard to model. Changes that occur to the model after construction begins
can be a challenge to incorporate into the construction version of the 3D model.
• A predominant format for data transfer has not emerged. LandXML accounts for less than
10% of the file data transfer format at each phase of the 3D model lifecycle, except for during
contract document creation, where it is at 12%.
IMPACT OF AMG ON EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
• Proper use of digital information for AMG will likely result in less confusion and more
accuracy than traditional methods of earthwork pay item quantification and payment.
Earthwork pay quantification from AMG must include mechanisms that all parties to the
contract (both the agency-owner and the contractor) can trust.
• Many software applications now have the capability to easily compute quantities using the
surface-surface method. The accuracy of the generated DTM plays a significant role in the
estimated earthwork quantities. Another key factor that contributes to the overall quantity
estimation is the soil shrink-swell factors.
• Model enhancement might be necessary during the development process for certain aspects,
such as providing offsets between pavements and subgrades, delineating areas where
equipment operation is excluded, and correcting inconsistencies that are not problematic for
design models but are for AMG.
• Most of the equipment vendors indicated potential productivity gain of about 40% and
potential cost savings of about 25 to 40% using AMG. Contractors indicated potential
productivity gain of about 10 to 25% and potential cost savings of about 10 to 25% using
AMG. The results from detailed case studies described in the literature and survey responses
indicate that the productivity gain and cost savings using AMG on earthwork projects can
vary significantly (with productivity gains in the range of 5% to 270% and cost savings in the
range of 10% to 70%). This variation is most likely because of various contributing factors,
such as project conditions, materials, application, equipment used, position measurement
technologies used, and operator experience.
• It is extremely important that existing surfaces are portrayed as accurately as possible, so the
model can be passed ahead to the design, estimation, bidding, and construction phases of the
project with high fidelity. A proper understanding of the factors that influence the accuracy of
the DTM is important to understand and must be addressed during the model development
phase.
• Survey results, reported in Chapter 3, indicated that a majority (> 70%) of contractors,
software/hardware vendors, and agencies who responded believe that the number of elevation
data points used in creating the DTM is a key factor in the accuracy of the DTM.
ACCURACY OF AMG PROCESS
• AMG component accuracies is an issue that affects various stages of the process including:
Initial data collection for developing existing surface terrains; development of DTM and
EED, AMG processes, procedures, and end-user competencies, QA/QC reported practices,
heavy and fine grading equipment operations, and paving equipment operations.
144

NCHRP Project 10-77
• Sources of errors contributing to the overall AMG accuracy were identified as an outcome
from the AMG Workshop and were related to frequency of error, means for detection, and
mitigation strategies to overcome the error. Survey outcomes from contractors, vendors, and
agency personnel on factors contributing to the overall accuracy of AMG are cross-
referenced to the findings from the workshop results. It does not appear that the effect of
construction process and human errors has ever been thoroughly studied or quantified. Most
contractors, vendors, and agency personnel who responded to the survey questions reported
that these variables play a key role in the overall accuracy of the AMG process.
• A frequent problem reported with GPS-based technologies is limited availability of satellites
(and, consequently, poor signal attenuation) when operating close to structures, trees, or
underground environments.
• The overall accuracy of the AMG process includes these construction process parameters:
speed of operation, material type and support conditions (uniformity), and terrain. These
parameters have not been thoroughly studied or documented in the technical literature and
they are application-specific or machine-specific. An experimental plan to help quantify the
influence of these factors on the overall accuracy of the AMG process is proposed for Phase
II. The level of impact for each of these factors differs with the application type.
• A detailed evaluation approach was presented that can be used to quantify of the several
factors (machine related, technology related, and human related), which contribute to the
overall accuracy of the AMG process.
GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS AND IMPLMENTATION
• As part of the research effort, specifications from several transportation authorities were
collected. All 50 states were contacted for example specifications. The specifications
collected are provided in Appendix C.
• For states that did not have specifications, interviews were conducted to understand why and
the level of interest in developing specifications. Responses indicated that in general, most
states desired AMG specifications, but barriers with training, software tools, design
guidelines, and perceived issues with liability via electronic data sharing, problems with
electronic data delivery, reference datum issues, and needing to pilot test AMG were barriers
identified as reasons for not having a specification.
• Based on the specifications that were studied, our assessment indicates the following:
- AMG will impact the earthwork, subgrade and base course, and paving sections of typical
transportation authority specifications.
- QC is often considered as a part of the construction services.
- QC is often included as a subsection of a full specification sections,
- Separate QC guidelines will likely need to be developed for each major AMG category
such as earthwork and pavement.
• After a critical review of the phrase and heading tables, the following six heading were
identified to best characterize the specification language from all the specification documents
— general, liability, equipment, responsibilities, measurement, and payment. These headings
were selected for inclusion in the guide specification tool. The specification development
process described in the FHWA Report “Evaluation of Procedures for Quality Assurance
Specifications”, (2004) was used to guide the process of compiling the content for each of the
key headings.
• The AMG guide specification tool includes a compilation of important key phrases. A letter
145

NCHRP Project 10-77
and number enumerate each line item. The letter corresponds to the first letter of the section
header (e.g. the general section is G.01, G.02, etc.). Responsibilities are subdivided into
agency (AR) and contractor (CR). A single idea is represented by each line item. In some
cases, the basic idea is viewed differently by states. To not omit certain perspectives, nested
statements are used to provide optional content in lieu of the primary content or additional
content that can be added to the primary content. Brackets with highlighted text, <<xxx >>,
are occasionally used to provide an option word or short phrase rather than repeat variations
of the primary phrases. Most of the table’s content has been synthesized for purpose of being
used as a guide specification.
• To use the AMG guide specification tool, it would ideally be reviewed and discussed by
agency design and contracting groups and provided to contractors for review and comments.
The guide tool is formatted so that it can be printed, marked for items to include, marked to
add additional items, and space for adding comments.
FUTURE OF AMG
• Rapid technological developments are propelling AMG towards new capabilities that are
agencies, contractors, and equipment providers. New paradigms are emerging for conceptualizing
sites, designing new and different projects, constructing projects, and ultimately using and
maintaining them.
• The future of AMG is one that will likely be abundant with modern technologies, with advanced
software, improved data interoperability, and new autonomous machine capabilities. This section
of the report highlights what are some of the emerging AMG technologies and presents a creative
consider the future at what might be possible. Whatever the future AMG landscape looks like, it
will require planning and innovative ways of interaction to garner the full potential of this
technology. New partnerships, research and development, and training across the AMG
community will be key to accelerating AMG innovation. The concept for an AMG professional is
introduced in this context.
• Also, building of discussion elsewhere in this report is the topic of data interoperability and future
needs. A futuristic description of an AMG land drone is also presented in the context of some of
the technical challenges that exist to advancement AMG capabilities to yet an even higher than
exists today.
146

NCHRP Project 10-77
REFERENCES
Acharya, B., Fagerman, J., and C. Wright, “Accuracy Assessment of DTM Data: A Cost Effective
Approach for a Large Scale Digital Mapping Project,” International Archives of Photogrammetry
and Remote Sensing (IAPRS), Amsterdam, Proceedings Vol. XXXIII (2000).
ARINC Inc. (2014). NDGPS Assessment Report, Final Report, Prepared by ARINC Inc. for Operations
Research and Development, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.
Aðalsteinsson, D.H., GPS Machine Guidance in Construction Equipment, BSc. Final Project Report,
School of Science and Engineering, Háskólinn Í Reykjavík University, Iceland (May 2008).
Barnes J., et al, “A New Pseudolite-Based Positioning Technology for High Precision Indoor and Outdoor
Positioning.” International Symposium and Exhibition on Geo Information, Shah Alam,
Malaysia, Proceedings (October 2003), p. 115-129.
Bernstein, H. M., editor, “The Business Value of BIM for Infrastructure: Addressing America’s
Infrastructure Challenges with Collaboration and Technology,” SmartMarket Report, McGraw-
Hill Construction: Bedford, MA, 2012.
Briggs, I. C., “Machine Contouring Using Minimum Curvature.” Geophysics, Vol. 39, No. 1 (1974), p.
39-48.
Burati, J.L., Weed, R.M.., Hughes, C.S., and Hill, H.S., (2004). Evaluation of Procedures for Quality
Assurance Specifications. FHWA-HRT-04-046.
Burch, D., Estimating Excavation, Craftsman Book Company, Carlsbad, CA (2007).
Burgess, B., “BIMs Role in Automated Machine Guidance.” Autodesk, PowerPoint presentation and
personal communication by Charles T. Jahren (April 6, 2010).
Cable, J.K., Jaselskis, E.J., Walters, R.C., Li, L., and C.R. Bauer, “Stringless Portland Cement Concrete
Paving.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 135, No. 11 (November 1,
2009), p.1253-1260.
Cambridge Systematics, Bently Systems, Inc., Info Tech, Inc., Michael Baker Jr., Inc., C. E. Campbell,
XML Schemas for Exchange of Transportation Data. Final Report, Project 20-64, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board of National Research
Council, Washington, D. C., Sept 8th, 2006.
Caterpillar, Road Construction Production Study, Malaga Demonstration and Learning Center, Spain
(December 2006). http://www.trimble-productivity.com/media/pdf/ProductivityReport
CATRoadConstruction2006.pdf (As of June 2010).
Cressie, N.A.C., “The Origins of Kriging.” Mathematical Geology, Vol. 22 (1990), p. 239-252.
Daoud, H., “Laser Technology Applied to Earthworks.’’ 16th IAARC/ IFAC/IEEE International
Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Universidad Carlos III de, Madrid,
Madrid, Spain, Proceedings C. Balaguer, ed. (1999), p. 33–40.
Davis, J.C. (1986), Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
147

NCHRP Project 10-77
FHWA (2013). 3D Engineered Models for Construction. Implementation Plan for Everyday Counts 2
Innovation Initiative, U.S. Department of Transportation, March 2013.
Florida Surveying and Mapping Society, “Copyright Issues Relating to Surveys.” (undated),
www.fsms.org/documents/CopyrightIssuesRelatingtoSurveys.doc (As of July 16, 2010).
Forrestel, R. (2007). “3D Models for Machine Guidance Systems,” Presented at the 2007 Highway
Engineering Exchange Program International Conference (IHEEP), Albany, NY.
FRP (2012). 2012 Federal Radionavigation Plan, Published by the Department of Defense, Department
of Homeland Security, and the Department of Transportation, National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia.
Galbraith, D.E., Stringless Concrete Slip Form Paving Using GPS Controlled Spreaders, Gulf Surveyors
Group, Inc., Apollo Beach, FL (June 2009) http://www.gulfsurveyors.com/
Stringless%20Concrete%20Slip%20Form%20Paving.pdf (Date Accessed: July 16, 2010)
Gilson, K. J. “What is Virtual Design and Construction and Why Does it Matter?” Session 113
Visualization Technology for Transportation Design and Construction, 89th Annual Meeting of
the Transportation Research Board, Washington D. C., January 10th, Washington D.C., 2010.
(C.T. Jahren’s personal notes of the presentation).
Hannon, J. J., and T. Sulbaran, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice Issue 385: Information
Technology for Efficient Project Delivery, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008.
Harrington PCC (2010). TCC National Concrete Consortium, Stringless Paving Applications, September
14, 2010, Sacramento, California.
Harry, O. W., “The Technology Benchmark-Requiring licensure for digital stakeout.” Point Of
Beginning, (Posted June 1, 2007), http://www.pobonline.com/Articles/Column/BNP_GUID_9-5-
2006_A_10000000000000113861 (As of July 16, 2010).
Hein, G., Rodriguez, J., Wallner, T., Eissfeller, B., and P. Hartl, “Envisioning a Future GNSS System of
Systems—Part 2.” Inside GNSS, Vol. 2, No. 2 (March/April 2007), p. 64–72.
Higgins, M., “Positioning Infrastructures for Sustainable Land Governance,” Presented at the FIG-World
Bank Conference, Washington, D.C. (March 2009).
Hixson, C. L. “Glaring Barriers for Virtual Design and Construction in Transportation” Session 113
Visualization Technology for Transportation Design and Construction, 89th Annual Meeting of
the Transportation Research Board, Washington D. C., January 10th, Washington D.C., 2010.
(C.T. Jahren’s personal notes of the presentation).
Houghton, P. (2001). “New technologies in 3D positioning and their applications to the construction
environment.” Presented at the 5th Conf. on Optical 3D Measurement Techniques, October 1-
3Vienna, Austria.
Jonasson, S., Dunston, P.S., Ahmed, K., and J. Hamilton, “Factors in Productivity and Unit Cost for
Advanced Machine Guidance.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128,
No. 5 (October 1, 2002), p. 367-374.
148

NCHRP Project 10-77
Joseph, W.B., “Surveyors Report: Interesting Times Ahead.” The American Surveyor, (Posted February
28, 2007), http://www.amerisurv.com/content/view/3532/153/ (As of July 16, 2010).
Kelleher, T.J., Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP’s Common Sense Construction Law, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., Hoboken, NJ (2005).
Konvitz, J. (1987). Cartography in France, 1660-1848: Science, Engineering, and Statecraft. Published by
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Krautschneider, R., Untersuchungen zur Leistungsfähirkeit des Messystems Indoor GPS,

Diploma Thesis, University of Applied Sciences Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
(2006).
Lee, D. T., and B. J., Schachter, “Two Algorithms for Constructing a Delaunay Triangulation.”
International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1980), p. 219-242.
Manore, M. A., Gilson, K. J, and C.L. Hixson, “Interactive Session with Workshop Participant Panel
Discussion: Recap of What We Learned.” Session 113 Visualization Technology for
Transportation Design and Construction, 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Washington D. C., January 10th, Washington D.C., 2010 (C.T. Jahren’s personal notes on
the discussion).
Mautz, R., “Combination of Indoor and Outdoor Positioning.” 1st International Conference on Machine
Control and Guidance, Zurich, Switzerland (June 2008).
Meneses, A.S., et al, “Quality Control in Digital Terrain Models,” Journal of Surveying Engineering, Vol.
131, No. 4 (November 1, 2005), pp. 118-124.
Moore, A. W. (2007). “Innovation: The international GNSS service – Any questions?”, GPS World, 58-
64.
Myers, R.H., Classical and Modern Regression with Applications, PWS-Kent Publishing, Boston, MA
(1990).
NASA (2014). The Global Differential GPS System, Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute
of Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Pasadena, CA.
<http://www.gdgps.net/> (Accessed December 2014)
NCEES, Model Law, National Council of Examiners and Engineering and Surveying, Clemson, SC
(2009).
Peyret, F. Betaille, D., and Hintzy, G. (2000). “High-precision applications of GPS in the field of real-
time equipment positioning.” Autom. Constr., 9(3), 299-314.
Responsible Charge Determination. The Colorado State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers
and Professional Land Surveyors (2003).
Retscher, G. (2002). “Multi-sensor systems for machine guidance and control.” FIGXXII Intl. Congress
Meeting, April 19-26, Washington, D.C.
Schaufelberger, J., Construction equipment management, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (1999).
149

NCHRP Project 10-77
Taylor, B. N., and C.E. Kuyatt, Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST
Measurement Results. NIST Technical Note 1297, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (September 1994).
Taylor, M. B., “Improved Geometric Design Criteria, Standards and Methods Supporting AMG.”
Presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Session 577,
Washington D. C. (2010), P10-0132.
Trimble, Trimble construction solutions for heavy and highway. Copyright 2006-2008.
http://www.trimble-productivity.com/media/pdf/trimbleHeavyHighwaysSolutions.pdf (As of
May 11, 2010).
U.S. Air Force (2014). Space Segment – Constellation Arrangement, National Coordination Office for
space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing, U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.
<http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/space/> (accessed December 2014).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Design Hydrographic Surveying, EM 1110-2-1003,
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. (April 2004).
Vonderohe, A., and Hollister, B. (2013). “Data Density Requirements as Function of Design Speed for
Controlling the Accuracies of Horizontal and Vertical Curve Representations in surface Models
for Automated Machine Guidance.” Paper 13-1405, Session 582, Transportation Research Board
92nd Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. January 13th through 17th 2013.
Vonderohe, A, Hintz, C., and A. Hanna, 3D Design Terrain Models for Construction Plans and Control
of Highway Construction Equipment, CFIRE 02-05, National Center for Freight & Infrastructure
Research & Education, Madison, WI (March 2010).
Weibel, R., 1992. Model and Experiments for Adaptive Computer-Assisted Terrain Generalization.
Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 19(3), pp133— 153.
Weibel, R., 1987. An Adaptive Methodology for Automated Relief Generalization. Proceedings of Auto-
Carto 8, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A., pp42-49.
150

NCHRP Project 10-77
ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, INITIALISMS, AND SYMBOLS

Agency Procurement/Construction (Agency P/C)
American Council for Construction Education (ACCE)
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII)
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Associated General Contractors (AGC) of America
Associated General Contractors Build Information Modeling (AGC/BIM)
Automated machine guidance (AMG)
Building information modeling (BIM)
California DOT (Caltrans)
Civil Engineering (CE)
Compact disc (CD)
Computer-aided drafting (CAD)
Delaware DOT (DelDOT)
Departments of Transportation (DOTs)
Design-bid-build (DBB)
Digital elevation model (DEM)
Digital terrain model (DTM)
Digital video disk (DVD)
Earthworks Engineering Research Center (EERC; in 2010, EERC became the Center for Earthworks
Engineering Research, CEER)
Electronic data design (EDD)
Electronic engineered data (EED)
Gauge capability ratio (GCR)
Geographical information system (GIS)
Global positioning system (GPS)
Indiana DOT (INDOT)
Inertial navigation systems (INS)
Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF)
Integrated project delivery (IPD)
International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE)
Iowa State University (ISU)
Light detection and ranging (LIDAR)
Montana DOT (MDT)
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES)
National Highway Institute (NHI)
North Carolina DOT (NCDOT)
Portland cement concrete (PCC)
Quality assurance (QA)
Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
Quality control (QC)
Real time kinematic (RTK)
Really simple syndication (RSS)
Request for Comments (RFC)
Resurfacing, restoring, and restoration (RRR)
Total station collectors (TSC)
Three-dimensional (3D)
Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS)
Triangulated irregular network (TIN)
151

NCHRP Project 10-77
Transportation information model (TIM)

University of Southern Mississippi (Southern Miss)
Uniform Resource Locators (URL)
Wisconsin DOT (WisDOT)
152

REPORT OF THE
WORKSHOP ON USE OF AUTOMATED MACHINE GUIDANCE (AMG)
WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 10-77
David White, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
Earthworks Engineering Research Center Director
2711 South Loop Drive, Suite 4700
Ames, Iowa 50010
515-294-1463
Charles Jahren, Ph.D., P.E.

Associate Professor of Construction Engineering
John Hannon, P.E.

Associate Professor
University of Southern Mississippi
Tulio Sulbaran, Ph.D., P.E.

Associate Professor
October 1–2, 2009

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report
Table of Contents
Preface ......................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary .................................................................................................... iv
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
The Challenge .................................................................................................................................. 1
Workshop Objective and Agenda ..................................................................................................... 1
Breakout Session Process ............................................................................................ 4
Opportunities and Challenges .......................................................................................................... 4
Legal Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 6
Development of 3D Files .................................................................................................................. 6
Accuracy Best Practices and Inputs/Outputs .................................................................................... 8
Bid Item Quantity ............................................................................................................................. 9
Review of Survey Objectives and Questions ................................................................................... 12
Additional Information Gathering .................................................................................................. 13
Facilitator Reports ..................................................................................................... 14
General .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Overall Rankings of Opportunities and Challenges ......................................................................... 21
Technical Breakout Session Results .......................................................................... 25
Legal Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 25
Development of 3D files ................................................................................................................. 26
Accuracy Best Practices and Inputs/Outputs .................................................................................. 34
Bid item quantity ........................................................................................................................... 37
Review of the Proposed Survey Questionnaires ............................................................................. 41
Training Information Request......................................................................................................... 47
Summary .................................................................................................................... 48
Appendix .................................................................................................................... 49

Preface
This report presents an overview and documentation of the Workshop on Use of

Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) within the Transportation Industry, held in
Altoona, Iowa, on October 1–2, 2009. The NCHRP Project 10-77 expert contact group
participants of this workshop included earthwork and paving contractors, equipment
manufacturers/dealers, software developers, state agencies, and academics. The
objective of the meetings was to develop a list of capabilities that must exist and
obstacles that must be overcome to facilitate seamless electronic data transfer from the
initial surveying to the development of digital terrain models (DTMs) through design
and construction to final inspection and verification. The outcomes of this workshop
were facilitated by breakout sessions to discuss opportunities and obstacles for ensuring
data integrity and quality results for the AMG process and a plenary session to review
the findings of previous breakout sessions and identify further opportunities and
obstacles by combining knowledge from the breakout sessions.
ii

Acknowledgments
The Earthworks Engineering Research Center (EERC) at Iowa State University and the
University of Southern Mississippi gratefully acknowledge the Transportation Research
Board for providing funding for this workshop through project NCHRP 10-77, Use of
Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) within the Transportation Industry. Travel
support was provided for one state department of transportation participant. Ziegler
Inc. provided the facilities for the meetings through coordination with Josh Olson. More
than 30 attendees participated in the event. Their efforts are greatly appreciated.
iii

Executive Summary
Application of automated machine guidance (AMG) technology to transportation

construction projects has the potential to enhance the abilities of state agencies and
contractors to deliver transportation construction projects better, faster, safer, and
cheaper. For state agencies to more broadly implement this technology, advancements
are needed in the following areas: (1) technical procurement specifications for AMG
technology, (2) guidance on the use of such technology in construction projects, and (3)
strategies for implementing AMG technology into construction techniques. To make
advancements in these areas, research project NCHRP 10-77, Use of Automated
Machine Guidance (AMG) within the Transportation Industry, was initiated and is
being performed by the research team members who organized this workshop.
Establishing an expert contact group was considered a key strategy for successfully
completing this research project.
The workshop was organized to assist the research team members in answering the
following questions:
• What types of software and equipment are currently being used worldwide
to implement AMG processes?
• What are the legal barriers that may prevent the use of AMG processes, and
how can they be mitigated?
• What level of training is available to support AMG processes for designers,
contractors, and field personnel? Should new training programs be
developed?
• What challenges exist for development of electronic design models that are
needed for AMG processes, and what are the key factors that should be
considered? How will quality control and quality assurance be carried out to
ensure design file accuracy? How should electronic information be
exchanged?
• What are the impacts of AMG for earthwork measurement and computation
of quantities? What level of accuracy is available for all components of the
AMG processes?
• What are the key elements of specifications for AMG technologies? Are
various levels of implementation required to fit the needs of the various state
departments of transportation (DOTs)?
• What are the contributing factors to ensure acceptable QA/QC, and how
should guidelines be written to ensure adequate final inspection?
iv

• What does the near-future hold for improvements and new developments
regarding AMG processes?
Details of organized breakout sessions covering the topic areas of (1) legal impacts, (2)
development of 3D files, (3) accuracy best practices and inputs/outputs, (4) bid item
quantity, (5) review of the proposed survey objectives and questions, and (6) training
information requests are presented herein. Based on a complete review of the
comments, a top 10 list of challenges/opportunities was developed and is summarized
below.

Synthesized and Ranked Priorities – General Session
Rank Topics
Data: There is a need to improve data management and electronic data exchange formats such as
xml and Landxml. These data exchange formats are not sufficiently robust to be appropriate for wide
1
adoption. Improvement of data exchange procedures between design and construction entities is an
opportunity for improvement.
Training and Education: Training and education is needed for all types of participants, including
2*
agency and contractor professional engineers, designers, and field personnel.
Standardization: In general, it would be desirable to modernize specifications. Non-standardized
AMG specs among states and the lack of standards for software and hardware are hindering the
2* implementation of AMG. Areas for improvement include better definition of project survey control
(set and maintain) and development of standard data feedback loops as bases of payment
(quantities) for accurate pay estimates.
Quality/Improvements: AMG provides opportunities to provide grade checks that cover essentially
100% of the surface. In addition, it is possible to incorporate utilities in models in their as-built
locations by referencing them before they are covered. Effective model verification will result in
4 better QC/QA. Procedure error and clash detection will result in a better final product. Other possible
benefits include increased productivity and improved industry perception and image due to the use
of higher technology solutions. However, to obtain these benefits, it will be necessary to carefully
indentify the proper technology for each specific implementation.
3D model: By conducting initial discussions with stakeholders early in the project using 3D designs, it
is easier to obtain understanding and agreement. Performing virtual construction before actually
building results in improved plans and fewer mistakes. Errors become readily apparent during a 3D
5 video fly through. Designers can visualize subgrade and find utility conflicts. An opportunity for this
group is to coordinate with the Associated General Contractors Build Information Modeling
(AGC/BIM) group that is working on horizontal construction. Software developers have already
started developing a horizontal construction version of BIM.
Benchmark Case Studies: There is an opportunity to develop a set of case studies that demonstrate
6 the use of AMG through the design and construction process. Contracting authorities and others may
be more willing to adopt and encourage the use of AMG after they have read the case studies.
Legal Challenges: Requiring licensed surveyors or engineers to perform the conversion of 3D models
into machine control files could chill the adoption of AMG technology. The question exists about who
is responsible for the design if plans are stamped twice by two different people: the original designer
7
and the person who was responsible for the conversion. Another question is, “What becomes of the
legal record of the design?” Can a 3D model be considered to be part of the contract documents? Is it
possible to make electronic plans the legal document that represents the design?
Safety: Considerable increases in safety are possible because fewer people are working on the
8
ground around the equipment as they set and reference stakes.
Real-time Network Support for Virtual Real-time Network to Work for AMG: An opportunity for
improvement would be to enhance virtual real-time networks so that they can replace base stations
9
for use with AMG applications. Currently, signal latency issues compromise the accuracy to such an
application.
AMG Applications for Subgrades/Paving/Overlays: There are some unique challenges and unique
10
opportunities for AMG applications on subgrades, paving and overlays.
*Note: equal number of votes.
vi

Introduction
The Challenge
Automated machine guidance (AMG) links sophisticated design software with

construction equipment to direct the operation of the machinery with a high level of
precision, improving the speed and accuracy of the transportation construction process.
Application of AMG technology to transportation construction projects has the
potential to enhance the abilities of state agencies and contractors to deliver
transportation construction projects better, faster, safer, and cheaper.
Key obstacles, however, that need to be addressed to better implement AMG

technology include development and transfer of three dimensional (3D) electronic files,
general lack of knowledge in subject matter, overcoming of legal barriers, and
documenting of the impact of AMG technology in terms of benefits and liabilities. Three
primary outcomes are needed to overcome these obstacles: (1) widely accepted
technical procurement specifications for AMG technology, (2) guidance on the use of
such technology in construction projects, and (3) implementation strategies for AMG
technology.
The workshop summary in this report contributes directly to the needed outcomes of
the NCHRP 10-77 research project1. To provide participants for the workshop, an expert
contact group was established that included representatives from equipment
manufacturers, software developers, hardware developers, contractors, and state DOTs.
A complete list of the participants is provided in the Appendix.
Workshop Objective and Agenda
The objective of the workshop was to develop a list of capabilities that must exist and
initial surveying to the development of the digital terrain models (DTMs) through
design and construction to final inspection and verification. The workshop commenced
at 1:30 PM on October 1 and ended at 11:00 am on October 2, 2009. The meeting was
held at the Ziegler, Inc. Caterpillar construction equipment dealership facility, 1500
Ziegler Dr. NW, Altoona, Iowa 50009 (just north and east of Des Moines). Key elements
of the agenda included the following:
1
NCHRP 10-77 - Use of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) within the Transportation Industry
http://144.171.11.40/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=2504

• An introductory plenary session

• Several breakout sessions to discuss opportunities and obstacles for ensuring
data integrity and quality results for the AMG process
• Subsequent plenary sessions to review the findings of previous breakout
sessions and identify further opportunities and obstacles by combining
knowledge from the breakout sessions
• Review of the proposed survey questionnaires
The complete detailed agenda is provided in the Appendix.
To start the event, participants were introduced and the research team communicated
that the goals of the workshop were to develop a list of capabilities that must exist and
initial surveying to develop DTMs through design and construction to final inspection
and verification. The introductory presentation slides to communicate the information
are provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Introductory slides.

Breakout Session Process
There were several breakout sessions, group sessions, and requests for feedback over
the two days of the workshop, which covered the following topic areas:
• Opportunities and challenges

- Three groups in earthwork
- One group in paving/subgrades
• Technical topics
- Legal impacts
- Development of 3D files
- Accuracy best practices and inputs/outputs
- Bid item quantity
• Review of the proposed survey objectives and questions
- Contractors (two groups)
- Hardware/software vendors
- Designers
For each breakout session, the facilitators described the topic for discussion and
provided direction and information on questions to be answered. A description of each
session topic is provided below.
Opportunities and Challenges
This session preceded the technical topic breakout sessions and focused on identifying
broad ranging challenges and opportunities for more effectively implementing AMG
technologies for transportation construction projects.
Cross-disciplinary breakout groups were formed representing groups for planning,

design, procurement, construction, and maintenance. Separate groups for earthwork
and subgrade/paving were also established. Each group was given the task of
brainstorming to develop lists of opportunities and challenges from their own
perspectives. Each breakout group then presented their opportunities and challenges to
the large group, and gaps were filled in to cover perspectives not covered in the
breakout group. Once all of the breakout session results were presented, like-items were
combined to target the top 5 to 10 key opportunities and challenges. Prioritization of the
items was done by voting. After prioritization was completed, the list was evaluated in
terms of low-effort versus high-effort items. Presentation slides to communicate the
process are provided in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Breakout session instructions.

Legal Impacts
For this session, the participants were asked to identify any legal issues with AMG and
specifically the sharing of electronic engineered data (EED) that they had experienced
personally or knew about second-hand from reliable sources. One of the goals of this
research project was to “form specific conclusions regarding the sharing of digital data
and how this ‘information exchange’ can be practically performed in the framework of
individual state statutes.”
Participants were asked to provide a brief description of each instance where legal
issues were discovered or exist and to categorize the issue/error according to the list
below:
1. Construction design approval (stamping plans)

2. Precedence of the contract documents when ambiguous or conflicting (2D
drawings, 3D drawings, and specifications, special provisions)
3. Change management (after 2D drawings are issued)
4. Synchronization of electronic data
5. Liability issues—design warranty/errors and omissions
6. Issues with signed liability waivers (for use of EED)
7. Indemnification of public entities
8. Intellectual property issues (copyright)
9. Alignment/conflict with existing trade union contracts
10. Other (?)
Development of 3D Files
The goal of this breakout group was to identify opportunities and challenges in the
development of 3D models for AMG. In an effort to allocate a comparable amount of
time to different elements of this very broad topic, the session was divided into three
segments, each limited to about 15 minutes. Each segment supports a particular
NCHRP 10-77 Project Task (1, 2, and 3).
Segment 1 - Review of Worldwide Literature, Survey, and Barriers
For this segment, participants were asked four questions. Question 1-1 was to identify
documents that provide information, good practices, lessons learned, implementation,
etc. of 3D model development in the transportation industry (i.e., documents in their
DOTs, presentations attended, articles read). A form was provided for participants to
identify (1) title of the publication, (2) source of the publication, and (3) name of the
participant making the suggestion.

Question 1-2 asked the participants to suggest current or desirable 3D model software
capabilities that would facilitate the implementation of AMG within the transportation
industry. A form was provided for them to identify (1) 3D model software capability,
(2) current [C] or desirable [D] source of the publication, (3) name of the participant
making the suggestion, and (4) group ranking.
Question 1-3 asked the participants about perceived (and/or real) benefits and
challenges to implement 3D model software to support the implementation of AMG
within the transportation industry. A form was provided for them to identify (1)
perceived benefits and challenges, (2) benefits [B] or challenges [C], (3) name of the
participant making the suggestion, and (4) group breakout session ranking.
Question 1-4 asked the participants to identify who owns the 3D model and what is the
liability of sharing the 3D model to support the implementation of AMG within the
transportation industry. A form was provided for them to identify (1) ownership
and/or liabilities of shared 3D models, (2) name of the participant making the
suggestion, and (3) group ranking.
Segment 2 - 3D Model Development/Software Training
For this segment, the participants were asked one question. Question 2-1 asked the
participants to suggest possible training opportunities for 3D model
development/software to support AMG in the transportation industry (i.e., workshop,
seminar, symposium, certificate, etc.). A form was provided for them to identify (1) title
of the training, (2) objectives of the training (list between 3 and 5 specific objectives), (3)
training duration in hours, (4) name of the participant making the suggestion, and (5)
group ranking.
Segment 3– Current Best Practices and Input / Output Accuracy
For this segment, the participants were asked two questions. Question 3-1 asked the
participants to share current best practices and/or challenges to develop 3D models to
support AMG in the transportation industry (i.e., documents in their DOTs,
presentations attended, articles read, etc.). A form was provided for them to identify (1)
best practices and/or challenges to develop 3D models, (2) best practice [B] or
challenges [C], (3) name of the participant making the suggestion, and (4) group
ranking.
Question 3-2 asked the participants to list accuracy differences/challenges between the
input data in the 3D models and the output data to support AMG in the transportation
industry. A form was provided for them to identify (1) accuracy challenges of 3D
models, (2) name of the participant making the suggestion, and (3) group ranking.

Accuracy Best Practices and Inputs/Outputs
This session was divided into four segments. The participants were asked to recall
instances where AMG accuracy was compromised. This could be a case where rework
was necessary or where the problem was remedied before rework was necessary (a near
miss—or even a far miss—if the problem was detected soon enough).
The results were to be categorized according to the list below:
1. Errors in setting up the control network

2. Inaccuracy in the preconstruction survey used to develop the digital terrain
model
3. Errors in the design
4. Errors that result from faulty software
5. Errors that result from faulty hardware
6. Limitations to the accuracy of positioning method (GPS, total station, or laser)
7. Errors transmitting control information from the positioning equipment (GPS,
total station receiver, or laser) to the machine hydraulic controls for the ground
or pavement engaging equipment
8. Inability of machine hydraulic controls to respond accurately or smoothly to
instructions from AMG units (overcorrection, slow response, and other similar
problems)
9. Human error in operating hardware, software, and equipment
10. Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/AC process (or false indications
of inaccuracy during a QA/QC process)
(Note that, in addition to 9, human error could also contribute to 1, 2, 3, and 10.)
Segment 1 - Error
Participants were asked to discuss and briefly describe where participants think the
most opportunities for error exist.
Segment 2 – Case History Projects
For this segment, the participants were asked to propose projects where the researchers
could interview project participants as specified in the following:
“Researchers will then interview project participants in each phase of the project
in attempt to determine sources of errors. Thus, four to five different participants
from each project may be interviewed to cover all phases of the project. During
the interviews, researchers will probe to find if human error (as noted in possible
sources of error above) might have contributed to the inaccuracy. Researchers

will also ask interviewees to list practices that are helpful in maintaining
accuracy. The results of the interviews will be recorded for later analysis.”
Segment 3 – Accuracy Checks
Participants were asked to propose local projects where participants can spot check for
accuracy. Note that GPS, total station, and laser are all required. Researchers proposed
to identify construction projects that can share QA/QC information that compares
actual AMG results with intended results. Furthermore, researchers will conduct their
own spot check surveys of local AMG projects so they can develop a better
understanding of how the QA/QC information was collected on other projects and to
provide a check against the shared QA/QC information. As QA/QC information is
obtained, researchers will ensure that balance is maintained among types of positioning
methods and types of construction equipment. Comparisons will be made between the
accuracy estimated by the mathematical model and the accuracy found by this part of
the investigation.
Segment 4 – Specifications
Participants were asked to provide points of contact for holders of information

concerning hardware, software, and construction equipment accuracy specifications for
AMG. The researchers plan to contact manufacturers of hardware, software, and
construction equipment to obtain specifications on the accuracy of each component.
Separate information will be obtained for each type of major positioning method (GPS,
total station, and laser) for various types of construction equipment (e.g., bulldozers,
excavators, motor graders, and pavers). Next, mathematical models will be developed
to predict the combined system accuracy by knowing the component accuracy. Separate
estimates of accuracy will be created for each major positioning method and each major
type of equipment.
Bid Item Quantity
For this session, several segments were developed for the participants to consider.
Overall, the participants were asked to point out best practice situations where quantity
development, tracking, and payment were enhanced by the use of the technology
associated with AMG. This enhancement could be while any of the following processes
were executed alone; however, the research team is especially interested in examples
where information and data are electronically transferred from one process to the other
and where this transfer enhanced quantity development, tracking, and payment. Less
than completely successful implementations were also of interest, especially if they
serve as good case studies on which to make improvements. Subgrade and paving
construction, as well as total station and laser positioning, were included in the
discussion.

Segment 1 - Identifying Solutions
The following processes were listed for consideration, and the participants were asked
to describe each of the best practices and provide a point of contact where more
information can be obtained:
1. Initial data collection (development of DTMs)

2. Model development for design purposes (preferably 3D)
3. Model enhancement for construction purposes (for example, providing
offsets between pavements and subgrades, delineating areas where
equipment operation is excluded, and correcting inconsistencies that are not
problematic for design models but are problematic for AMG)
4. Model conversion to AMG format
5. Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download)
Segment 2 - Modifications
For this segment, the participants were asked how the processes above (numbered 1 to
5) should be modified to better describe subgrade and paving construction and/or the
use of laser or total station positioning.
Segments 3/4/5/6/7 – Improvements to Benefits and Liabilities
The participants were asked how the following statements of benefits and liabilities
could be improved:
• (3) Initial data collection (development of DTMs):

- Benefits: Existing surfaces are accurately portrayed and can be passed
ahead in the AMG process with high fidelity.
- Liabilities: There may be possibly higher upfront costs for equipment and
highly trained personnel and a possible inability to make gut-level checks
for data collection errors.
• (4) Model development for design purposes (preferably 3D):

- Benefits: Existing surfaces information has higher fidelity, and earthwork
volumes can be computed “on the fly” as the 3D model is developed.
Various layers and volumes that represent various bid items and various
costs can be collected and categorized during the design process.
Designed surfaces are accurately portrayed and can be passed ahead in
the AMG process with high fidelity. Some types of design errors are
obvious when the 3D model is inspected visually.
10

- Liabilities: There may be possibly higher upfront costs for software,

hardware, and highly trained personnel and a possible inability to make
gut-level checks for some types of design errors. Downstream personnel
may be critical of design personnel for alternative designs that were not
used and documented in unused parts of the model. Designers may
consider inspection of the details of the design process by downstream
personnel to be too invasive of their professional autonomy.
• (5) Model enhancement for construction purposes (for example, providing offsets
between pavements and subgrades, delineating areas where equipment
operation is excluded, and correcting inconsistencies that are not problematic for
design models but are problematic for AMG):
- Benefits: The constructor may discover possible design improvements or
design errors during the enhancement process, saving time and money
during construction. The constructor may develop a better understanding
of how to construct the project as the design model is enhanced. The
constructor could improve construction productivity and safety by adding
exclusions zones for equipment and methods to track equipment usage
during construction.
for design errors or construction enhancement errors. There may also be a
possibility of passing undetected errors from the previous sub-process to
the next sub-process.
• (6) Model conversion to AMG format:

- Benefits: It may be possible to develop automatic load counts and infer
earthwork or pavement volume or tonnages moved by equipment by on-
board weight detection. Data collection methods could be developed that
infer current elevations of partially completed projects by knowing
current equipment elevations. This information may be used to monitor
current earthwork volumes for partial payment.
for design errors or construction enhancement errors. There is also the
possibility of passing undetected errors from the previous sub-process to
the next sub-process.
• (7) Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download):

- Benefits: QA/QC personnel can use DTM and the final design model to
automatically locate test and display results. Elevations of existing
surfaces can be obtained quickly and modeled in 3D in order to estimate
current earthwork and pavement volumes or tonnages for partial
11

payments. Quality information is processed along with volume

information to ensure that partial payments are made for earthwork or
pavement that meets quality requirements.
for data collection errors. If a proper data collection and documentation
strategy is not developed, QA/QC personnel could be overwhelmed by
data overload.
Segment 8 – Missing information
This segment asked participants to identity what was missed because the previous
analysis was performed at a process-by-process level. What insights can be gained by
considering the benefits and liabilities for all of the processes taken together?
Review of Survey Objectives and Questions
The research team is developing questionnaires that will be used to conduct a

worldwide survey of transportation agencies, software vendors, equipment vendors,
and contractors to identify the types of software and equipment currently being used to
implement AMG processes. The survey will cover current 3D modeling software
capabilities; types of electronic files that are submitted to contractors (e.g., dgn, dwg,
dtm, tin, and LandXML), when these files are made available to the contractors (e.g.,
pre-bid or post-award); and equipment capabilities and reliability. The survey will also
document the perceived benefits and liabilities of AMG processes.
With approval from the NCHRP 10-77 project panel, the survey will be deployed to the
following groups of respondents:
• Transportation agencies—Planning functional area

• Transportation agencies—Design functional area
• Transportation agencies—Procurement (bids/tenders) functional area
• Transportation agencies—Construction functional area
• Transportation agencies—Legal counsel
• Industry—GPS/CAD software vendors/providers
• Industry—GPS hardware vendor/providers
• Industry—Heavy equipment manufacturers
On day two of the workshop, the participants were asked to review the survey content
and provide feedback. Two contractor groups, one 3D modeling group and one
hardware and software vendor group, were formed to provide four breakout groups.
The proposed survey content was discussed by breakout sessions groups and the
12

results reported to the entire group for discussion. Drafts of the surveys are provided in
the Appendix.
Additional Information Gathering
In addition to the facilitated breakout sessions, the research team collected additional
information on two topics by asking participants to fill out forms during breaks and
transitions times. These methods were used to assist with the literature search and to
identify training opportunities.
Review of Literature
The workshop participants were provided a list of literature and specifications

developed by the research team for review. Participants were asked to review the list
and provide feedback on missing documents and, in particular, any existing
specifications. A list of the specifications and documents collected is provided in the
Appendix.
Training Information Request
The participants were asked to submit information on training opportunities for AMG
technologies. A training opportunity card was used to collect information (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Training opportunity card.
13

Facilitator Reports
General
Detailed comments recorded during the breakout session are presented in the following
for all four general breakout groups. Following the group breakout sessions, the results
from all sessions were presented to the larger group and discussed. Next, the
participants voted for the highest priority challenges and opportunities. The research
team then synthesized common topic areas and combined votes to develop a prioritized
list. Tables 1 through 3 list the results from the various stages of this analysis process.
The outcome was a top ten list of focus areas for AMG.
Breakout Group 1-1, Opportunities and Challenges – David White (Facilitator), Heath
Gieselman (Recorder)
Challenges
• Smith- Mind set of customer is that minimum thickness must be maintained, but
agency does not want to pay for overrun (area vs. volume calc), and an assurance
must be given to the agency
• MATT-Contractor needs to know location, design, and yield
• Preconstruction planning/survey cost and time constraints
• ACC vs. PCC differences, pay by gravimetric or volumetric
• ACC vs. PCC QA differences
• There is no tool available to calculate yield in 3D
• Value engineering is not considered
• Data overload to operators from the machine
• Additional costs and effort are required
• With the feedback from AMG, are skilled operators being lost? Checks/balances
are being lost
• Specialized operators are needed for each machine
• Barriers exist in specifications that do not allow AMG, and specs need to be
changed to allow the technology
• Quality of design provided to contractor is not always sufficient and rework
needs to be done, often at the expense of the contractor (agency responsibility
and quality of deliverable needs to increase)
• Preparation of subgrade and base for high quality will allow for quality
construction at the pavement level
• Size of contractor limits access to market
• Procedure of design to construction (this addresses many of the issues, and
improvement of the process and will lead to an overall improvement):
14

preconstruction survey, design optimization, data transfer, design revisions,

model validation (QA), defined process to address pay units
• Agency, manufacturer, contractor working together
• Cost savings/return on investment
• Modernization of specifications
• Training is needed for operators and agencies*
Opportunities
• Smith-Overlay market
• Tom- The overlay application provides an opportunity to use AMG to be
more sophisticated in our approach that goes beyond the profile method. The
new method needs new specifications.
• Removal of human error, creating a higher quality product
• Preparation of subgrade and base for high quality will allow for quality
construction at the pavement level
• Case studies to show there are price reductions
• Complete as-built information for troubleshooting as failures occur
• Rapid/efficient construction
• Safety
• Environmental benefits
• Construction quality
• Reduced life-cycle costs
• Reduction of machine wear
• Standard architecture
• Increased perception/image of the construction industry*
• Benchmark case study*
• *Quickly able to act on
Breakout Group 1-2, Opportunities and Challenges - John Hannon

(Facilitator/Recorder)
Challenges
• Initial decision of stakeholders early to 3D

• Checking model 2D geometry for “blind-spots”
• Getting the model approved by professional designer (stamp)
• Model version changes
• Determination/understanding/communication of the model as contract
document
• Defining the setting and maintenance of project survey control
• Level of accuracy of control network (as a business process)/consistency of
reference framework
15

• AMG educational competencies of P.E.s and agency field personnel

• Stakeless productivity gains of contractors being realized by agencies
• Real-Time network support for virtual reference stations (latency)/virtual
reference station real-time network to work for AMG
• Format for sharing 3D model
• QA/QC verification procedures
• Solar flare season forecast for next few years can disrupt GPS system
Opportunities
• Error and clash detection

• No third-party integrators
• Less rework and conflict between stakeholders
• Sharing as-built data back through the model
• Data feedback loop as quantity ”basis of payment” for more accurate pay
estimates
• Savings on purchases of base-stations: virtual reference station real-time
network to work for AMG
Breakout Group 1-3, Opportunities and Challenges - Charles Jahren (Facilitator),

Adam Dubree (Recorder)
Topics Most Important
• Opportunity as design is built to capture what is actually built, particularly

utilities and knowing where they were actually placed
• Send deliverables to contractors, 3D design so we don’t have to transition 2D
to 3D and how big of an issue it is in the DOT. Goal: design to construction
seamlessly.
• Challenge: The issue with designing 3D for designers. Plan sheets vs. design.
• Transition from ink to CAD to make life easier, but haven’t made the step to
3D. Opportunity is 3D design. This is because errors can be found and
increase quality.
• 3D design
- Improve plans
- 2D to 3D can cause a ton of transition errors
- Problem is thinking about subgrade to actually designing the subgrade; to
tie in all the levels of the road into one
- If you can virtually construct first you can avoid errors from subgrade to
surface.
- DOT’s criteria is the surface, but the actual construction involves it all,
even huge utility conflicts
16

- 2D utilities are almost impossible to detect, but with 3D you can almost
clash-control
- Possible collaboration with horizontal BIM
• Modeling systems that include subgrade information such as Microstation
and Autocad 3D civil
• Challenge: There will always be constructability errors, but a transition from
a 3D DOT model will help in the transition
• Look deep into shrinkage and swell and how that works with the 3D
• Opportunity: Mitigate construction claims; would be more about such
quantities
• Opportunity: Accelerate acceptance of the technology within the DOTs. The
improvements of how DOT dollars are used?? DOTs idea of what’s in it for
me
• Higher level of transportation service for same amount of money
• Don’t pay for the design twice
- Engineer design (2D) SELLING POINT FOR DOT
- Design conversion (3D)
• Acceptance of data is beginning to progress; not really relying on checking as
built
• Possibility to accept machine data for QC less QA surveying
• AMG provides 100% grade
• Challenge: Legal issues that licensed surveyors, Kentucky and California,
have to do the automated machine grade, and then who is responsible?
• Other legal issue has to do with the paper plans being the legal document,
with the exception of Florida
• Who is responsible for the design when the plan is stamped twice by different
people?
• What document actually becomes the legal design?
• Opportunity to integrate the utility location that we are actually putting in the
ground before it’s buried and then are putting into the model of the design
• One thing to figure out is the different quality levels of information that we
are receiving. How do we know what is quality level D as opposed to quality
level A, and the connection between contractor and operator?
• Issues with troubleshooting to make sure that everything is functioning
correctly with the GPS unit and that technical support is available
• I.e., Technology guys don’t understand the machine and the machine guys
don’t understand the technology
• How do we improve the usability?
• Cat machine and Trimble machine and even Topcon are not actually
seamless. There is a difference of file types.
• Challenge: Electronic data exchange formats are not as robust. Just because
you say you have compatibility doesn’t necessarily mean that you truly are
compatible.
17

• The community connection: Trimble-connected community is a big plus for a

lot of the jobs. Also, communication to the operator is a nice feature.
• Wirelessly update designs without stopping the operation.
• Issues with radio distance and satellite issues when you get a satellite spike.
You can’t become solely reliant on AMG and still need to have somewhat of
an idea of what to do. Terrain issues and possibly radio interference in
locations like airports
• Non-standardized AMG specs among states
• A way to make sure data is accurate and certifiable instead of just a licensed
surveyor to stamp off and to ultimately make the 3D model the legal
document
Breakout Group 1-4, Opportunities and Challenges – Tulio Sulbaran

(Facilitator/Recorder)
(Note: number sequence below represents comments organized by participant)
2.1 Opportunities
Increased productivity
Shorter road closures
Minimizing impact on traveling public
Decrease in cost to owner due to increased productivity and fewer stakes
Can potentially incorporate utility as-built into 3D model
Reduce amount of “rework” due to placing material to grade the first time
2.2. Challenges
Development of precise model
What to include/exclude
File size requirements
Matching grid coordinates/ local coordinate system using GPS
Obtaining tight tolerances (both vertically and horizontally)
How can owner/consultant verify contractors’ work on stakeless jobs?
Cost of systems
Amount of time to recover cost
3.1 Opportunities
Elimination of operator error
Less time, more money, more accurate schedule
Minimize rework
Safety (reduction in ground personnel)
All DOTs have “connected site,” “common ground”
18

3.2. Challenges
Operator training
DOT training
Price
Consistent format (Trimble, Topcon, etc.)
People being willing to change
4.1 Opportunities
Standardized training for basic equip. operation (i.e., machines, base stations,
equip.)
Finding a process to better consolidate of the different data and modeling
software
Achieving a better understanding within the AMG process of possible vs.
impossible expectations of finish product
4.2 Challenges
To develop a workforce of trained professionals to work in the AMG field
To improve the flow of data from engineering to field
To achieve better results in the final construction through like practices, both in
engineering and implementation
To move a step further a AMG to incorporate remote control
5.1 Opportunities
Efficiency
Transfer of more electronic info and getting away from paper
Takes the liability off of the equipment operator
The project can more easily be precisely built to the original vision of the
designer
Cost savings to every party involved
Reduction in traffic interruption to the general public
5.2 Challenges
Standardization of information (files formats, frequency of data provided, etc.)
Getting the design community to collectively change as a whole to using a
standardized format (when designing in 3D)
Legal liability in connection with addendum information and plan changes
Making sure that no one software/hardware company dictates the information
creation and/or flow
6.1 Opportunities
Productivity gains for earthmoving (private companies)
Less time, fuel, labor, rework
Less turn-over for employees
19

Machine lasts longer

Move on the next job quicker
Fewer tax dollars spent (public)
Work last longer built
Better/more accurate
Looks nicer/lasts longer
6.2 Challenges
Lack of standards
Infrastructure standards (base station/radio/protocols, etc.)
Data standards (design software, formats, etc.)
Lack of understanding performance
Everyone seems to have a product that is promoted as the best, based on
what?
How was it tested? How do we know and compare (accuracy, density,
etc.)? Compared to what? In which applications, with which machines,
materials, etc.?
7.1 Opportunities
Completion of job faster
More accurate finished product
Lower cost of construction
Improve quality of finished product
7.2. Challenges
Getting 3D data in the field
Proper application technique by contractor
The following are the opportunities and the challenges that the group as a whole
identified after having the opportunity to see all individual participants’ ideas. This list
corresponds to the results of the Step 2 and Step 3 of this breakout session.
Consolidated Group 1-4 Opportunities and Challenges
List of Opportunities (RANK 1 most important to 7 less important)
1. Increased productivity (private and public) (operator)

2. Increase safety (workers away from high risk areas)
3. Reduce operating cost – Better use of manpower, equipment maintenance, and
operation
4. Less disruption of traffic flow
5. Better final product (quality and durability)
6. Reduce worker turn-over
7. Improve flow of data through the project life-cycle (opportunity/challenge?)
20

List of Challenges (RANK 1 most important to 7 less important)
1. Training construction and DOT personnel: Training standardization (technology,

equipment, and process)
2. Lack of standards for software and hardware (ISO standard?)
3. Legal liability (what governs electronic/paper): Utility construction
4. Improve flow of data through the project life-cycle (opportunity/challenge?) –
(i.e., file format, information, level of detail)
5. Identify the proper technology for a particular implementation
6. Willingness of people to change (from the manufactures, through the DOT, to the
contractor)
7. Entrance barrier (i.e., price, knowledge, experience) with equipment, software,
design, etc.
Overall Rankings of Opportunities and Challenges
After the breakout sessions were completed, a representative from each breakout group
shared the breakout group’s results with all of the participants and displayed the
newsprint posters on which the challenges and opportunities were recorded. Each
breakout group selected their 5 to 10 most important opportunities and challenges.
Then the facilitators and participants combined like items that were repeated from one
breakout group to another. Next, each participant was given 10 self-stick colored dots
that could be distributed in any manner across the items that the participant found most
compelling. The results of this voting are shown in Table 1.
Next, the facilitators synthesized the opportunities and challenges into broader topic
areas—in many cases, both opportunities and challenges were grouped into the same
category. The broad topic areas were then ranked by totaling the votes assigned to the
narrow topic areas that fell under each broad topic. Table 3 represents this
configuration.
The first five categories—data, training and education, standardization, quality

improvements, and 3D models—were closely grouped, each having more than 30 votes.
For the sixth category, benchmark case studies, participants asserted that there would
be considerable benefit by documenting some case studies about the use of AMG. The
eighth ranked category, safety, was included because several participants asserted that
the there is a considerable safety benefit of not having surveyors and others on the
grade near machinery installing and referencing stakes.
21

Table 1. List of Results from Voting Exercise – General Session

Challenges
Topic # Votes
Training/agency/contractor 13
Procedure design—construction 9
Modernize specification 6
Data management 1
AMG applications for paving/overlays 4
Quality improvement 1
Electronic data exchange formats (xml, Landxlm – not robust/compatible for wide
12
adoption)
Legal challenges: Required license surveyor or engineers to do conversion; who is
responsible for design when the plan is stamped twice by different people; what 15
becomes the legal design
Making electronic plan the legal document 5
Non-standardized AMG specs among states 1
Initial discussion of stakeholders early in 3D 11
Is model a contract document? 1
Definition of project survey control (set and maintain) 17
Education: Professional engineer; design field-level competencies (agency) 5
Real time network support for virtual real time network to work for AMG 5
QC/QA procedures verification 14
Training issues 16
Lack of standards for software and hardware 9
Need to improve data and information flow 12
Indentify proper technology for specific implementation 1
Opportunities
Topic # Votes
Industry perception/image 1
Benchmark case studies (construction and design) 23
Wireless update the designs on-board without stopping operations 17
AMG provides 100% grade checks ;incorporate utilities (as-built locations) in models
8
before they covered
3D design, do virtual construction before build: improve plans = fewer mistakes; you
will be able to see them in video; design and visualize subgrade; find utility conflicts;
21
coordinate AGC/BIM group working on horizontal construction; software developers
have this now
Quality improvement (O) 1
Error and clash detection 1
Data feedback loop as basis of payment (quantities) accurate pay estimates 1
Increased productivity 4
Safety 12
Better final product 2
Improve data flow 1
22

Table 2. Categorized (unranked) Summary – General Session

Topic # Votes
Training and Education 34
Training/agency/contractor (C) 13
Training issues (C) 16
Education: Professional engineer; design field-level competencies (Agency) (C) 5
Data 35
Data management (C) 1
Electronic data exchange formats (xml, Landxlm – not robust/compatible for
12
wide adoption) (C)
Need to improve data and information flow (C) 12
Improve data flow (C) 1
Procedure design—construction (C) 9
3D Model 32
Initial discussion of stakeholders early in 3D (C) 11
3D design, do virtual construction before build: improve plans = fewer mistakes;
you will be able to see them in video; design and visualize subgrade; find utility
21
conflicts; coordinate AGC/BIM group working on horizontal construction;
software developers have this now (O)
Legal Challenges 21
Legal challenges: Required license surveyor or engineers to do conversion; who
is responsible for design when the plan is stamped twice by different people; 15
what becomes the legal design (C)
Is model a contact document? (C) 1
Making electronic plan the legal document (C) 5
Standardization 34
Modernize specifications (C) 6
Non-standardized AMG specs among states(C) 1
Lack of standards for software and hardware (C) 9
Definition of project survey control (set and maintain) (C) 17
Data feedback loop as basis of payment (quantities) accurate pay estimates (O) 1
Quality/Improvements 33
AMG provides 100% grade checks; incorporate utilities (as-built locations) in
8
models before they covered (O)
Better final product (O) 2
QC/QA procedures (effective model verification) (C) 14
Quality improvement (C) 1
Error and clash detection (O) 1
Increased productivity (O) 4
Industry perception/image (O) 1
Indentify proper technology for specific implementation (C) 1
AMG Applications for Paving/Overlays (C) 4
Benchmark Case Studies (Construction and Design) (O) 23
Safety (O) 12
Real-time Network Support for Virtual Real-time Network to Work for AMG (C) 5
23

Table 3. Synthesized and Ranked Priorities – General Session

# Item Vote
Topic Votes Rank
1. Data 35 ⎯
Data management (C) 1
Electronic data exchange formats (xml, Landxlm – not robust/compatible for
12
wide adoption) (C)
Need to improve data and information flow (C) 12
Improve data flow (C) 1
Procedure design—construction (C) 9
2. Training and Education 34 ⎯
Training/agency/contractor (C) 13
Training issues (C)* 16 4*
Education: Professional engineer; design field-level competencies (agency) (C) 5
2. Standardization 34 ⎯
Modernize specifications (C) 6
Non-standardized AMG specs among states (C) 1
Lack of standards for software and hardware (C) 9
Definition of project survey control (set and maintain) (C)* 17 3*
Data feedback loop as basis of payment (quantities) accurate pay estimates (O) 1
4. Quality/Improvements 33
AMG provides 100% grade checks; incorporate utilities (as-built locations) in
8
models before they covered (O)
Better final product (O) 2
QC/QA procedures (effective model verification) (C) 14
Quality improvement (C) 1
Error and clash detection (O) 1
Increased productivity (O) 4
Industry perception/image (O) 1
Indentify proper technology for specific implementation (C) 1
5. 3D Model 32 ⎯
Initial discussion of stakeholders early in 3D (C) 11
3D design, do virtual construction before build: improve plans = fewer mistakes;
you will be able to see them in video; design and visualize subgrade; find utility
21 2*
conflicts; coordinate AGC/BIM group working on horizontal construction;
software developers have this now (O)*
6. Benchmark Case Studies (Construction and Design) (O)* 23 1*
7. Legal Challenges 21 ⎯
Legal challenges: Required license surveyor or engineers to do conversion; who
is responsible for design when the plan is stamped twice by different people; 15 5*
what becomes the legal design (C)*
Is model a contact document? (C) 1
Making electronic plan the legal document (C) 5
8. Safety (O) 12 ⎯
9. Real-time Network Support for Virtual Real-time Network to Work for AMG (C) 5
10. AMG Applications for Paving/Overlays (C) 4
Note: (O) = opportunity; (C) = challenge
24

Technical Breakout Session Results
The technical breakout session are summarized in the following sections.
Legal Impacts
John Hannon (Facilitator/Recorder)
• Precedence of contract documents=> see Virginia, North Carolina, South

Carolina
• Many agencies are requiring a licensed surveyor to approve the DTM.
• In Peoria, Illinois, the operators union would not let the members retrofit the
contractor’s equipment with AMG systems. Therefore, the contractor had to hire
a non-member service technician for the retrofit.
• Unions have provided AMG training in Dayton, Ohio.
• In California, a professional engineer (P.E.) is exposed to liability if a non-
professional is utilized in the creation of the DTM.
• In Kentucky, there are reports of the P.E. licensing board restricting the use of
DTM models unless approved by a professional.
• In North Carolina, a DTM issued by an agency can be released to the contractor
but not a third party unless approved by a P.E. The licensing board has been
challenged on this issue in court.
• In North Carolina, a licensed surveyor is required for construction layout.
• Building the DTM should not be considered a design function.
• Agencies/DOTs are concerned about changes in the DTM from the
stamped/approved design.
• If paper plans have precedence, then the contractor will either build or compare
the DTM to a DTM built from 2D, then compare with the agency-provided DTM
(comparing 3D to 3D is fast, comparing 2D to 3D is slow).
• Existing process of design changes should govern (compensable with time
added).
• Land surveying is by statute performed under the supervision of a registered
land surveyor (RLS), but when it comes to digital data, this is problematic
because the statutes are silent.
25

Development of 3D files
Tulio Sulbaran (Facilitator/Recorder)
The charge of this group was to list

Opportunities
Challenges
of 3D model development for AMG.
Process used:
Step 1- Individually answer one question

1.a Opportunities
1.b Challenges
Step 2- Brainstorm as a group - Combine add/delete at the end of each question
Step 3- Continue to next question
Result of the Breakout Session
The following is the form that was provided to all participants, and the corresponding
answers for each question were the product of step 1 and 2 of this breakout session.
Introduction
The overall goal of this breakout group is to identify opportunities and challenges in the
development of 3D models for AMG. In an effort to allocate a comparable amount of
time to different elements of this very broad topic, the session has been divided into
three segments, each limited to no more than 15 minutes. Each segment is also
supporting a particular NCHRP 10-77 project task.
Segment 1 - 5:25pm – 6:10pm – Review of Worldwide Literature, Survey, and Barriers

Supported Tasks
Task 1. Critically review the worldwide literature on the relevant use of AMG technology. The
review shall consider such sources as state transportation agencies, trade publications, and the
AASHTO Technology Implementation Group (TIG).
Task 2. Prepare a detailed plan for the conduct of a worldwide survey of state transportation
agencies, software vendors, equipment vendors, and contractors to determine what types of
software and equipment are currently being used to implement AMG processes. The survey shall
cover, at a minimum, current drafting and design software capabilities; types of electronic files
that are submitted to contractors (e.g., dgn, dwg, dtm, tin, and LandXML), when these files are
made available to the contractors (e.g., pre-bid or post-award); and equipment capabilities and
reliability. The survey shall also document the perceived benefits and liabilities of AMG
processes. Upon approval of the plan by the NCHRP, conduct the survey.
26

Task 3. Identify any current legal barriers that may prevent the use of AMG processes, either by
state transportation agencies or contractors, including electronic file use disclaimers, organized
labor issues, and state statutes.
Question 1-1: Ask the participants to suggest documents that provide information, good
practices, lessons learned, implementation, etc. of 3D model development in the
transportation industry (i.e., documents in their DOTs, presentations attended, articles
read):
Name of the
Participant Making the
Title of the publication Source of the Publication Suggestion
Electronic File Conversion ENR 5
3D Shift for DOTs ENR 5
Cascade Project, West Des Moines Machine Control Conf. 2009 Zeigler 2
T-REX Project, Denver, Colorado Internet 2
Utility Construction Project, Kiewit Nice Presentation on Internet 2
Site Prep Magazine Web/Print 4
Machine Control Online.Com Group
Bentley.com Group
Technology and White Paper Web 3
27

Question 1-2: Ask the participants to suggest current or desirable 3D model software
capabilities that would facilitate the implementation of AMG within the transportation
industry:
Name of the
Put [C] for Participant
Current or [D] Making the
3D Model Software Capability Desirable Suggestion
Fix translation issues from CAD software to
D 2
machine control software
Training of users to use full potential of
D 2
software
Integration between surface
design/survey/utilities/ D 2
environmental/GIS/drainage
Software speak same language with field
D 5
software equipment
Training P.E.s to understand 3D
D 5
models/design
Tighter integration/compatibility testing
D 4
between design and machine software
“Bust” detection/visualization features D 4
Common standards for
D/C 4
LandXML/TransXML
Automatic validation of CAD to machine file
D 3
transfer
Back work compatibility/capability D 2
Libraries of file type conversation (perhaps
D 4
open source)
28

Question 1-3: Ask the participants about perceived (and/or real) benefits and
challenges to implementing 3D model software to support the implementation of AMG
within the transportation industry:
Put [B] for Name of the

Benefits or Participant
[C] for Making the
Perceived Benefits and Challenges Challenges Suggestion
P.E. shift to 3D Design C 5
Share accurate info across the industry B 5
Adoption of good 3D modeling practice across
C 4
industry
“Usability” of complex 3D design tools for
C 4
(terminology, etc.), “non-experts”
DOT acceptance of accuracy of 3D technology
C 3
training across the DOT organization
Document and create baseline B 3
It is a black box, 3D design will fix everything C 2
Training, Training, Training C 2
$ Why should designers get paid more $ for design?
Current practices have too many holes in plans, C 2
overpaid
3D design creates better engineering B/C Group
Decrease in engineering time B Group
Decrease in the data transfer B Group
Decrease in the construction time B Group
Decrease claims and overruns B Group
Decrease the cost to client B Group
Increase the quality of the product B Group
Route optimization C Group
Decrease environmental impact (i.e., ability to
B Group
avoid sensitive areas)
Reduce safety risk B Group
Improve constructability and usability of the
B Group
infrastructure
29

Question 1-4: Ask the participants about who owns the 3D model and what is the
liability of sharing the 3D model to support the implementation of AMG within the
transportation industry:
Name of the Participant

Ownership and/or Liabilities of Shared 3D Models Making the Suggestion
Clients retains ownership/liability but freely distributes to
4
(bidding ) contractors
Designer then client ownership/liability 2
Contractor ownership/liability 5
P.E. owned, same as 2D ownership/liability 3
The issue is a shift of job responsibility (job security!) Group
Designers are aware that mistakes are possible in drawings,
but they are currently fixed by experienced surveyors.
However, with the implementation of 3D design and AMG, Group
that experienced surveyor will not be there to fix the
problem.
30

Segment 2 - 6:10pm -6:25pm – 3D Model Development/Software Training

Supported Task
Task 4. Identify and review current AMG training opportunities (e.g., literature and courses).
Training opportunities should include all aspects of the AMG process, including model creation,
grade control establishment and calibration, and field inspection procedures.
Question 2-1: Ask the participants to suggest possible training opportunities on 3D

model development/software to support AMG in the transportation industry (i.e.,
workshop, seminar, symposium, certificate, etc.):
Objectives of the
Training Training Name of the
(List between 3 and 5 Duration in Participant Making
Title of the Training specific objectives) hours the Suggestion
User conferences Sharing experiences 16 2
What they want as a
DOT-led classes 40 2
product deliverable
What they really need as 2
Contractor-led classes 40
a product deliverable
Trimble dimensions Data model, design, user 2 3
Basic 8 hours
On-line web-based training Intermediate 24 8/24/40 3
Expert 40
Good design practices
troubleshooting, “bug
Vendor (reseller training
fixing” of models 40 4
programs)
Data “streamlining”
Design for drivability
Introduction Course to
3D design for AMG 24 5
3D Design
Software workshops +
Seminar 2-3 days 5
Seminars
Advanced training for
Learn from the experts
DOTs by current 24 5
modelers
31

Segment 3 – 6:25pm – 6:35pm – Current Best Practices and Input/Output Accuracy

Supported Task
Task 5. Identify the current best practices and the challenges associated with the development of a
project design model that is suitable for use by AMG technology. Identify the key factors that
should be considered during the preparation of design models. Identify best practices for
performing quality assurance and quality control on design models, by both the transportation
agency and the contractor.
Task 7. Develop estimates of the current accuracy of all components of the AMG process
(modeling software, positional system equipment, construction equipment, and inspection
equipment) and compare those estimates to actual field accuracies of AMG. Identify key factors
that contribute to the accuracy.
Question 3-1: Ask the participants to share current best practices and/or challenges to
develop 3D models to support AMG in the transportation industry (i.e., documents in
their DOTs, presentations attended, and articles read, etc.):
Put [B] for Name of the

Best Practice Participant
or [C] for Making the
Best Practices and/or Challenges for Developing 3D Models Challenges Suggestion
Understand the current construction practices C 2
Understanding good design practices, anyone can make a
C 2
design fit
Understand what data you are working with – accuracy/quality
C 2
source
Quality survey data 3
Standardized layers/color/naming standards B 4
Mandatory “fly-through” prior to shrink-wrap of models B 4
3D during design modeling B/C 5
Create model first/plan second B/C 5
Another P.E. model form design: two sets of eyes for QC B 5
32

Question 3-2: Ask the participants to list accuracy differences/challenges between the
input data in the 3D models and the output data to support AMG in the transportation
industry:
Name of the
Participant Making
Accuracy Challenges of 3D Models the Suggestion
Triangular irregular network (TIN) models vs. alignments for
4
accurate roading vs. “bulk” earthworks (suitability)
Alignments, unconnected lines, TIN models 3
33

Accuracy Best Practices and Inputs/Outputs
David White (Facilitator), Adam Dubree (Recorder)
Dependency of accuracy determines what method you would use. For example, if you
are looking at a +- .5”, then there is no issue with using GPS. On the other hand, if you
are looking at a +-.02”, then why not use a total station or an augmented station?
An issue is the variation of different working environments, such as the difference of

milling or grading or even differences in materials such as soil or clay. You can’t take
the GPS as an out-of-the-box item.
Are there red flags for operation errors, such as speed or valve pressure?
Another issue is the quality checks using different software, i.e., Topcon vs. Trimble vs.
CAT, because the software reads the models differently.
There are issues of calibration. And there needs to be rover calibration, but, at the same
time, does the different software read differently and show different results?
Frequency and Magnitude of Error
• #3. (not necessarily daily but frequent) Errors in design

• (not necessarily daily but frequent) Limitations to the accuracy of positioning
method (GPS, total station, laser) Pushing
• #8. Inability of machine hydraulic controls to respond accurately or smoothly to
instructions from AMG units
• Human error in operation hardware, software and equipment (HUGE ISSUE TO
CONSIDER)
Project Duration
• #4. Errors that result from misuse of software

• Errors that result from actual misuse of hardware
• #8. Inability of machine hydraulic controls to respond accurately or smoothly to
instructions from AMG units
• Failure to ID inaccuracies during QA/QC process (These discrepancies have a lot
to do with project size.)
34

Random
• #1. Errors in setting up the control network (Is the control permanent or a
temporary or a combination of the two?)
• #2. Inaccuracy in the preconstruction survey used to develop the DTM (You can
never have enough information to build the project 100%, unless you measure
every square inch.)
Seldom
• #10. Failure to ID inaccuracies during QA/QC process

• These discrepancies have a lot to do with project size.
If used correctly, negatives decrease. Operators need to be aware of proper procedures.
Comments on categorizes:
• #6. Does this include satellite coverage issues?
• #7. Generally not too many issues. Does this question mean a line-of-sight issue?
• #8. Might be a situation where new calibration is required or a valve change is
required to link with how machine is being used (i.e., speed)
• #10. Does this include differences resulting from different interpretations to
generate models?
• #11. (New item) Sensor/technology/system limitations (i.e., pushing beyond the
limits of the equipment)
Brief Description of Each Instance Where Accuracy was Compromised (provide Category
participant name, if possible, for follow-up questions) Number
Owner and contractor not using the same model
“never seen a set of plans that asked for 2/100th accuracy, 1/10 or 8/100 +/- (most of the
time)”
Human error – follow wrong line on screen, forget overcut protect was off. Had changed
vertical guidance, operator would catch most mistakes if they ran cross-section view 1
instead of plan view.
Operator has wrong vertical offset – make color map of different offsets for each site.
Blade wear incorrect – unchecked for long time. Rover checked being machine (not
checked every day)
Faulty hardware – warning message on screen – repair/replace broken part. Inability to
keep fixed GPS solution, high PDOP (SP?)/vertical accuracy (more than a 1/10th) 2
intermittent
35

90% I exchange, but we buy new or hire repair; 10% hire Ziegler, I try to keep one of
everything in my truck: cords and, if available, machine parts (SV5/GCS6/10/11)
Design – office: looking at model in 3D on computer, comparing model to paper plans –

3
some things you fix, others you ask designer to repair
Field – comparing model to surveyor’s stakes; have surveyor stake center of road,
building corners. Breaks across a few stations, etc. with design and actual elevations
Field – machine “draws” over rough spots in model. Structures/tie-in points/existing

gravel of edge of job not matching model to real world
$$$ Base goes down/nothing works on-site (if foreman has not staked some); GPS on
machine goes down – machine still can move dirt, rover could stake, machine downtime
to repair is lost production (rain day/late day/weekend)
Rover goes down – machine still works
The following table format was suggested for summarizing findings for this discussion:
Frequency
Source of Project
Error (#) Daily Seldom Duration Random Detection Mitigation
1 √
2 √
3 √
4
5
6
7
8 √ √
9 √
10 √ √
11 √
36

Bid item quantity
Charles Jahren (Facilitator/Recorder)
Segment 1
• Projects with private owners such as developers are more advanced in using and
taking advantage of data file sharing, because much of the construction is done
under a design-build delivery system where there is a higher degree of
integration among the owner, designer, and constructor. This reduces barriers to
file sharing and discussions between the designer and constructor. In some cases,
GPS surveying is used to confirm, cross-check, and correct aerial survey
information.
• Examples in transportation are scarce because the project life-cycle is long.
Original surveying for current projects may have been done several years ago,
before AMG was contemplated.
• Aggregate quarry stripping projects in Iowa are good examples of how
earthwork quantities can be effectively tracked. Earthmovers are often contracted
to remove overburden from quarry areas. In the past, disputes over earthwork
quantities have been problematic on a regular basis. GPS surveying has
improved the situation considerably. GPS surveys are taken at these times:
- Preconstruction
- After top of rock elevation is established (usually the top of rock is fairly
flat, so rock only had to be exposed in a few places in order to provide a
reasonable estimate of the amount of overburden to be removed)
- Before each progress payment is made
• Topos for borrow pits for Indiana DOT
• Landfills. Clay liners’ thickness must be proven to be sufficient in order for
operators to be assured that they are operating within regulations. GPS
surveying and AMG construction are used to establish this proof.
• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had a job in Sioux City, Iowa, where AMG
was used and efforts were also made to track earthwork quantities. Jason
Billerbeck will serve as the point of contact if more information was needed.
• Cascade Avenue in West Des Moines, Iowa, serves as a local best practice
transportation project where 3D modeling and AMG were combined as
seamlessly as possible. Several of the workshop participants from Iowa were
involved in this project.
Segment 2
No participant comments were collected on this segment of the breakout session.
37

Segment 3
No specific input from the expert contact group was collected.
Segment 4
Comments provided by the expert contact group are as follows:

• There is agreement that design errors are often caught in the process of
developing 3D models. This is a big advantage!!
• A liability is that it is hard to estimate the cost of developing the 3D model. For
example, traditional design cost estimating is done by estimating the number of
plan sheets. How do you estimate the cost of using a method that does not
produce plan sheets?
• Change “downstream” personnel to “subsequent” personnel
• Higher upfront costs can be offset when users engage the full power of the
software. For example, it is usually possible to tie the surface drainage features to
the profile grade. Therefore, if the profile grade changes, all surface drainage
features automatically change with it.
• Training is important, and management must accommodate training costs.
Segment 5
• There is confirmation that upfront costs for equipment and personnel are higher.
However, it is easy to recapture this cost by reducing material waste by having
surfaces on grade more consistently. (Others added agreement during the
plenary session.)
• Some may prefer to allow field people to add offsets in the field.
• Participants indicated that it is helpful to have the design to provide the actual
subgrade width.
Segment 6
• Being able to do this will be attractive for state highway authorities (SHAs). They
will trust the results more by combining these measures with intermediate topos.
Although there is some risk in doing this, the SHAs take on risk in any case.
Segment 7
Other items added during the expert contact group discussion were as follows:
• Confirming that it is good for operators to get off their machine once in a
while and make sure things are OK.
38

• Some contractors double check GPS elevations with other GPS elevations. It is
better to double check GPS using a completely different method, such as total
station or laser.
• On some jobs, intermediate payments are determined in this way.
• People need to know how to collect the break points; this requires training.
• Contracting authorities can save personnel time by having contractors do
intermediate topos; however, the SHA will have to learn to read the reports.
• Rather than having contractors provide GPS equipment for the contracting
authority to use, it is better to specify that the contractor will provide an
operator who will take measurements when and where requested. Sometimes
it is too hard to train people for occasional GPS use for QA purposes.
• It was noted that the City of Chicago provided intermediate topos on the
O’Hare Airport project.
Segment 8
This discussion took place right after participants finished discussing Segment 1, and it
generated the most interest of any of the subsequent segments 2 through 7.
One of the most important points discussed is that it is important that the original data
collection survey be executed properly in order to develop the TIN for the
preconstruction surface. Of particular concern is that the data be collected by surveyors
that work over the entire area collecting all necessary break points in such a way that
the information can be used, even if the intended road alignment changes.
Alternatively, a less effective method is to lay out the road alignments and then take
cross-sections at every 50 or 100 ft. If this is done, the survey is of little value in the
alignment changes during design. Also, surveyors may miss important break points
between cross-sections. This can be improved if the cross-sections’ density is increased;
however, even the most dense cross-section scheme will not be as satisfactory as a good
survey that is specifically executed to produce a good TIN.
Another important item to consider is how the quality of a TIN may be affected by the
process in which it is developed. It is possible to use an original survey that is based on
cross-sections and use the information to develop a TIN. When this is done, the
resulting TIN may appear to the casual observer to have the same quality as a TIN that
was developed with a survey that was properly executed to develop a TIN. However,
the cross-section-based TIN will likely have several inaccuracies because break lines
and other important features were not capture because they were between or outside
cross-section locations. TIN users should always question how the TIN was originally
developed and be skeptical of any TIN that was developed based on information from
cross-sections.
39

One important question that should be considered is, “How should the quality of a TIN
model be specified?” This needs to be communicated so that designers, contractors, and
owners can have predictability about what a TIN model can be expected to deliver and
how much effort is required to develop it.
Several other points were made during the discussion:
• It will be a challenge for transportation agencies to respond quickly to the needs

of AMG projects because the project life-cycle is relatively long in comparison to
private projects. Many designs on the shelf now and ready for construction were
surveyed using the cross-section approach. Redoing the surveys would be
extremely time consuming, and is likely to be impractical. However, to properly
prepare for AMG, the correct type of initial survey must be executed from the
start. It is difficult to change approaches in the middle of the project life-cycle.
• If repeated topos are to be taken for progress payments, go back to the same
coordinates each time a new topo is taken.
• Cross-section-based TINs are especially unsatisfactory when around ramps, gore
areas, and other such special areas.
• Some jobs are created using outdated software packages, and the new packages
are not backwardly compatible.
• If there are problems with AMG elevations, consider the possibility that there
may be small errors in the original survey that are within tolerance but cause
unsatisfactory results with AMG.
• For linear jobs, consider the possibility that discrepancies between the curvature
of the earth and a Cartesian coordinate system may be problematic.
• Consider how accurate a survey is in comparison to earthwork shrink and swell
changes. Uncertainty in this area may overshadow uncertainty from other
sources.
• If cross-sections are used, pick up key points such as beginnings and endings of
retaining walls, PCs, PIs, PTs, beginning and endings of ditches, and super-
elevation transitions.
• Note that if the information density in 3D files is too great, the file might not fit
on the computers on the equipment. Careful consideration is required to include
the right information without including too much.
• South Carolina specifies cross-sections at 3 ft to 10 ft, depending on the design
speed and rate of curvature.
• Find out if software uses a prismoidal formula if cross-section calculations are
performed. The prismoidal approach will be more accurate than the average end
area.
• Think about tolerances carefully. Don’t compare quantities taken with +/- 0.1
surveying with quantities taken with +/- 0.02 surveying.
40

Review of the Proposed Survey Questionnaires
The results of the review of the survey questionnaires are provided in the following
sections.
Breakout Group, Contractor Survey Review, Charles Jahren (Facilitator/Recorder)
• How long will it take for respondents to fill out?

• Think about how many questions per page, 10 min.
• Any questions that would be especially difficult or time consuming to answer?
• General comments on survey.
• Seems like we don’t care what they think unless you use it? Find out why they
don’t use it.
• Don’t we care about private work? We get more and better information from
private work.
• Ask what percentage is private vs. public.
• If people are not using it, is it because: Agencies put up too many barriers
• Question 11. Participant indicated that all DOT work has to be reverse
engineered DOT plans. All private work can be transferred electronically.
• Get tick box on size of company, $ volume, or number of employees. Do we have
number of systems deployed?
• Provide a method to forward survey to colleagues.
• Need to have a way for someone like Kiewit to respond to specialized questions;
determine which type of questions the person could answer first.
• Have a “not part of my job” answer.
• Need a box for any additional questions or case studies.
• Need an explanation of how it will be used and opportunity of survey results.
• A two- or three-minute video to introduce it would be OK.
• Question 2. Does this really matter? May not be relevant..
• What kind of equipment are you using it on? It could be that the company only
has a sonic system.
• Question 3 and 4. Give some choices to begin with.
• Question 6 gives a way to collect data from private projects also. Give % of public
and private work. Maybe do a separate question from both public and private
work.
• After Question 6, go to “Why not?” questions.
• On private side, ask about how data is received. QA will be different. Give as
built-as model. Public does its own QA and does not want surface model.
• Ask: do they usually use contractor or agency QA/QC? How much spot
checking is done by agency? Respondent would have to respond in different
terms for different agencies.
41

• Question 9. How are you going to use this question? Depends on the size of job.
One big job that lasts for two years will skew data. Maybe better to ask what % of
work is AMG? Suppose a company has one finish blade that does all jobs in an
area. How do you interpret that? How many AMG machines on each site? How
many projects are touched by AMG? Do they use AMG from the beginning so
they don’t make mistakes in the beginning and don’t have to clean up mistakes?
• Question 12. List specific state or agencies to help lit review.
• Question 14. Clean up list a bit. Gerhard Pilcher will email a new list. Have hot
links to definitions of certain terms. Companies have only one type of software.
• Question 19. How often do they share back the surface to owner? Usually only to
show that the final product is within tolerance.
• Question 21. If the DOT provided DTM, then they are responsible. If contractor
built it from paper plans, then contractor is responsible. The answer will depend
on who built the DTM and what job they are on. Job-specific. How often do you
accept DTM from agency? Private/public.
• Question 23. Are you willing to share any lessons learned?
• Question 26. Comment: Gerhard, mass grading by time period, road grading by
distance.
• Question 27. List training opportunities
• Question 28. List training opportunities
• Question 31. Add original control network to the choices.
• Question 34. Add safety to ranking? Is there a way to quantify $ savings? Can
contractors give their idea of where they save their client $. To what extent is
savings passed on? Add contract schedule compression (less time on project
contractor vs. less time with road out of service).
Breakout Group, Survey Contractors, David White (Facilitator), Heath Gieselman

(Recorder)
• Question 6. If answer no, asked them to comment on why.

• Question 9. One reviewer noted: If you are utilizing AMG, are you bidding jobs
utilizing AMG? (a) Yes, (b) No
• Question 15. Confusing question to some. Break this question into two separate,
more focused, questions: 1.What can you work with currently; 2. What do you
need – (a) surface 2D/3D, (b) line work, (c) top of pavement vs. top of subgrade,
etc.?
• Question 17. Need to be more specific, because some use one brand for GPS and
another for laser, etc.
• Question 18. An additional question following Question 17 might be, why do
you use that specific brand? (a) cost, (b) tolerances, (c) regionally supported, etc.
• Question 25. Probably need to distinguish between QA and QC?
• Question 28. Is this synonymous with “machine” or different?
42

• Question 34. Answer (d) as-built documentation. Group indicated that these are
not applicable because done with independent topo, not AMG results.
• Question 40. The group considered this one of three super-critical questions. The
contractors felt like the number was probably around 20% and suggested a 5%
increment. They also think that having this info will be extremely helpful for the
state DOTs as motivation to move forward. (Question 41 similar in terms of rated
importance)
Breakout Group, Survey Software/Hardware Discussion, John Hannon (Facilitator),

Adam Dubree (Recorder)
Software Vendors
• Where are the DOTs with adopting the 3D software, and why are they just
dabbling?
• What design standards do the DOTs use today?
• One of the challenges is that everybody is trying to do their own thing and there
needs to be consistency and standards to incorporate more than just the DOTs,
but agencies on the national level.
• In the old days, reports went from planning to design and then there would be
the design phase.
• Today, as the surveyor steps out on the job, that information is what is used for
the design.
• What’s your process and logic for this software, and how are they applied and
why?
Hardware Vendors
• Issues of accuracy
• What is the standard for accuracy among DOTs
- Normal work, AMG, incentives to contractors???
- Are accuracy standards realistic?
- What’s the value of the accuracy standards we are driving toward?
 Whether it be eyeballed or down to the .01”, as long as it rides true,
is it ok?
 Depending upon what task is being performed, should it depend
on the accuracy?
 What’s the value of the accuracy for the specific task?
- Just because we have better tools, does that mean we are actually building
better roads?
- Driving cost to have a higher expected piece of machinery.
- What’s the point of diminishing return in cost?
- How do you verify the accuracies?
43

• What are the machine standards to qualify them capable of GPS?

• What’s the process for building?
• What’s the process for DTMs?
• What’s realistically works for everybody?
- What standard or best practice can unite everybody as a whole?
- Is it a design, engineer, or AMG process?
• Determining the actual sensor to be used is a huge thing to figure out.
• When you begin to chase these accuracies, you need to look at the materials,
contractors, quality of work, etc. before you just blame the hardware.
• Are your expectations different with the new technologies in the field, as
opposed to the specs?
- Ask DOTs what the standards they are held to.
- On the flip side, ask the contractors what standards are they expected.
• How can one point condemn a single piece of points? How many measurements
should be taken, and which measurements should be used?
• Why not take these measurements all the way down to the subgrade?
• What is the new process to build the road and not a new way to implement
AMG?
• DOTs: This is your requirement, but why is it your requirement? What is the
basis for these? How did you derive these? With the new technology, should this
be the requirements?
• Tell us what you want and we will produce depending upon what instrument
we need to use. This puts less on the agencies.
• How far do the agencies need to go with the specs?
- Whether it’s machine, grade, technology, etc.
• What are the standards?
• What application?
• How are the standards upheld?
• What are the standards held to upon the contractor?
• How are the standards checked in the field?
Breakout Group, Survey Design Discussion, Tulio Sulbaran (Facilitator/Recorder)
The charge of this group is to modify, delete, and/or add possible questions to the
worldwide survey that will be targeting DESIGN agency.
Process used
Step 1- Individually, each participant reads survey questions 8:15–8:25
Step 2- Discuss the survey as a group
44

Result of the Breakout Session:
Consolidated group feedback regarding the survey target to DESIGN agency:
• Terms are not the same among the stakeholders of the project. For instance, 1-
most people associate DTM with original terrain, but not everybody. So,
perhaps spell out or add a glossary (i.e., What is 3D design?) (early in the
document) that defines the terms used in the survey.
• Identify the results from the AASHTO Geometric Design Committee Survey
(done electronically and close about in August) regarding the standard data
exchange file format (TRANSxml).
• Question 11. Answers B and C are duplicated.
• Question 8. Suggest including the following applications:
- Land Development Desktop
- Civil3D
- GeoPak
- Terramodel
- Inroads
- Carlson
- EaglePoint
- Caice
- Other (text box)
• Question 9. Suggest adding the following file formats:
- .dtm
- Leica format?
- Topcon format?
- CAT own format?
• Question 4. Is there value in this question? This is time-dependent? But new
construction is easier? Perhaps add to the question, what are the expectations
for the next 5 to 10 years?
• Question 5. Modify to “CAD drafting standards” (remove processes). If the
answer is B or C, then add a question 5a, “Is there a formal QA/QC program
to ensure that the standards are followed (yes/no/I don’t know)?”
• Question 12. Eliminate “(i.e., GEOPAK Modeler)”
• Question 13. Eliminate “calculated”
• All the questions that start with “IF” should be divided into two questions,
one that asks “Does… ? (y/n)” and then one that asks “If yes, the question.”
• Question 12. Change “DTM” to “design DTM”
• Question 14. Change “DTM” to “design DTM”
• Question 16/17. Restate the question. What is the intent of the question?
What is this 5 feed? Surface model? During the design? Perhaps eliminate
questions 16/17 and substitute with:
45

- “How are your 3D models created?”

• The cross-section is created first and then the 3D model.
• The 3D model is created first and then the cross-sections are generated.
• Question 18. Change to ranges, perhaps <25%, 25%-49%, 50%-74%, 75% or
more
• At the beginning of the survey, it should be explicitly indicated that we are
talking about the 3D design model. Get rid of DTM.
• Question 20. Answer “No” could be due to many reasons. So, perhaps a
follow-up question should be added with the following choices:
- Liability concerns
- Matter of policy
- Model does not exist
- Budgetary constrains
• Question 22. Add an option “Finish Gradebook,” change “3D surfaces” to
“3D triangles,” and change “if your agency shares DTM” to “if your agency
shares electronic data.”
• Question 27. Add a question after 27 such as, “Should there be a change in
DESIGN CHANGE standards and policies to accommodate for AMG?”
46

Training Information Request
The information provided in Table 4 is a summary of the training information collected

during the workshop.
Table 4. Summary of training opportunities
Type of Provider Delivery method
Online synchronous (instructor or group

Design software developers and down
Books, pamphlets and other literature

Equipment Manufactuers and Dealers
Surveying and positioning equipment
channel sales and training partners
Independent Professional Trainers
Online asynchronous (Self Paced)

University or College (non credit)
University or College (for credit)
manufacturers and dealers

Classroom or onsite
Trade Association
Trade Union
Follow up Point
pace)
Provider Title of contact Comments
John Simmons
(618) 478-9000
www.APISurvey
API Surveying, Inc .com X X
Leica and Gomaco
Training Week for Dennis
Machine Guidance on Claussen of
Gomaco University Gomaco Machine Gomaco X X X X X
Online and Software
Timble Demo Dick Pope X X X X X
Expert Contact Group
Search on member describes this
Wisconsin Wisconsin as a "top notch training
Operating Operation program that includes
Engineers Union Engineers X X AMG
danwiese@star Hands on GPS/Machine

TopCon equip.com X X Control Training Program
Microstation/Geopak/I dtmsolutions.
Bentley nroads Training com X X
(1) Basic Road
Modeling, (2)
Advance Road
Modeling, (3) 2D to 3D
Electronic File Brian@3Dsurfac
Van Pelt, Brian Conversion esolution.com X X
vanderohe@cen Has presentation
Vanderohe, Alan turytel.net X X X materials
danwiese@star Prerecorded tutorial
TopCon TopCon University equip.com X X X system
Generally, colleges and
universities are not as
current with the
software, so asking in
asking them to train
users, software training
is key. Vendors and
Bentley Lean, Bentley owners of software are
Institute, User groups better suited to
Several (see next (IDDEA.GRG/FLUG.org) providing ongoing
cell to the right , Autodesk University X X X X X X X training.
47

Summary
A workshop was held among approximately 30 members of the NCHRP 10-77 expert
contact group. A combination of breakout sessions, general sessions, and participant
input via paper forms were conducted to provide information on the following:
• Top opportunities and challenges

• Legal impacts
• Development of 3D files
• Accuracy best practices and input/outputs
• Bid item quantities
• Literature
• Training opportunities
In addition, the expert contact group reviewed copies of the proposed survey objectives
and questions and provided input. By meeting the workshop attendees, the researchers
and the expert contact group cemented relationships that will facilitate several
necessary actives in the near future:
• Develop lists of potential survey respondents and following up to ensure that

that there are an adequate number of responses
• Identify useful case history examples
• Identify best practices for a variety of activities
• Provide detailed information as necessary
The participants found the short overnight format (afternoon of the first day to mid-
morning of the second day) to be manageable with regard to travel schedules and other
commitments. The research team wishes to thank the participants for their part in
having a successful workshop.
48

Appendix
Information provided in the Appendix includes the following:
- Workshop Agenda
- Invitation Letter and Meeting Location
- List of Participants
- Literature Review Summary
- Draft Survey Questionnaires
- Photos of the Event
49

Agenda
Automatic Machine Guidance Workshop
NCHRP 10-77
Des Moines, Iowa, Thursday Oct 1st through Friday Oct 2nd.
Meeting Location: Hotel Information

Zeigler Incorporated Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites
1500 Ziegler Dr NW 165 Adventureland Drive NW
Altoona, IA 50009, Altoona, 50009
(515) 957-3800 (515) 967-1855
Contact: Josh Olson ASK for "AMG" block of rooms
THURSDAY OCTOBER 1ST
1:30 to 2:15 PM Welcome session.

• Introductions (Dave White)
• Workshop objectives (Dave White)
• Procedure for listing and ranking opportunities and challenges (Chuck Jahren)
2:15 to 2:30 PM Break
2:30 to 3:30 PM Breakout session (Chuck Jahren)

• 3-4 breakout groups
• Each groups develops
o 5 to 10 opportunities
o 5 to 10 challenges
3:30 to 4:30 PM General session—Break out results (Chuck Jahren)

• Each group presents results
• Vote on opportunities and challenges to provide ranking
• Break time included during voting
4:30 to 5:00 PM General session – Ranking results (Chuck Jahren)

• Announce rankings
• Instructions for next break out session.
5:00 to 6:00 PM Breakout sessions– Technical topics

• Legal Implications (John Hannon)
• Development of 3D. (Tulio Sulbaran)
• Earthwork Calculations (Chuck Jahren)
• Accuracy (David White)
6:00 to 7:00 PM Supper at conference location

• Fill out training opportunity forms
7:00 to 8:00 PM General session—Breakout results (Chuck Jahren)

• Each group presents results
• All participants make additions and improvements
Adjourn for evening
[continued over or next page]
50

FRIDAY OCTOBER 2ND
7:15 to 8:00 AM Breakfast

• Fill out literature review forms
8:00 to 8:15 AM General session—instructions for survey review (John Hannon)
8:15 to 9:15 AM Breakout sessions—survey review

• Review survey objectives
• Review survey questions
• Suggestions for targeting respondents
9:15 to 9:30 AM Break
9:30 to 10:30 AM Closing general session

• Survey review results (John Hannon 30 min)
• Conference summary (David White 30 min)
Conference Adjournment
51

Invitation Letter
Automatic Machine Guidance Workshop.
NCHRP 10-77
Des Moines, Iowa, Thursday Oct 1st through Friday Oct 2nd.
The workshop will commence at 1:30 PM on October 1st and will end by 11:00 am on October 2nd. We
will accommodate late arrivals and early departures as necessary to allow individual participants to attend
by leaving their origin in the morning of October 1st and returning by the evening of Oct 2nd. The meeting
will be held at 1500 Ziegler Dr NW, Altoona, IA 50009, (515) 957-3800 (just north and east of Des
Moines). The agenda includes the following:
• An introductory plenary session;

• Breakout sessions to discuss opportunities and obstacles for ensuring data integrity and quality
results for the AMG process;
• A second plenary session to review findings of previous breakout sessions and identify further
opportunities and obstacles by combining knowledge from the breakout sessions.
The detailed agenda will be provided at the workshop.
Welcome and general introductory session: Participants will be introduced and the research team will
communicate that the goal of the conference is to develop a list of capabilities that must exist and
obstacles that must be overcome in order to facilitate seamless electronic data transfer from the initial
surveying to develop DTMs through design and construction to final inspection and verification.
First breakout session: Participants will be assigned to breakout groups as follows. The topic areas
represent sub processes in the AMG process.
1. Initial data collection (development of DTMs)

2. Model development for design purposes (preferably 3D)
3. Model enhancement for construction purposes (for example: providing offsets between
pavements and subgrades, delineating areas where equipment operation is excluded, and
correcting inconsistencies that are not problematic for design models but are problematic for
AMG),
4. Model conversion to AMG format
5. Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download)
Participants will list capabilities that must exist and obstacles to developing those capabilities in each
breakout area. Capabilities and obstacles will be listed, categorized, and ranked before the breakout group
returns to the next plenary session.
Closing plenary session: A plenary session follows where breakout groups will share the results of their
discussions. Some capabilities and obstacles will be cross cutting and not detectable at the breakout group
level. The facilitator will work with the entire group or representatives of the entire group to identify such
crosscutting capabilities and obstacles. The required capabilities and obstacles to be overcome will be
summarized.
52

Meeting Location:
1500 Ziegler Dr NW, Altoona, IA 50009, (515) 957-3800
Contact: Josh Olson
Hotel Information:
Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites

165 Adventureland Drive NW
Altoona, 50009
(515) 967-1855 ASK for "AMG" block of rooms
53

NCHRP 10-77 Workshop Participant List
NAME Company Phone Email

1 Billerbeck, Jason Peterson Contractors 319-345-2713 jbillerbeck@petersoncontractors.com
2 Braddy, Katherine Caterpillar 309-578-7049 Braddy_Katherine_C@cat.com
3 Brenner, Mark GOMACO 712-364-3347 markb@gomaco.com
4 Bush, John Kewit 773-917-2202 john.bush@kiewit.com
5 Cackler, Tom CPTech Center 515-294-3230 tcackler@iastate.edu
6 Clabaugh, Curtis Wyoming DOT 307-777-4086 curtis.clabaugh@dot.state.wy.us
7 Corcoran, Paul Caterpillar 309-578-7049 corco@verizon.net
8 Dahlinger, Jerry Guntert & Zimmerman 209 599 6131 Gdahlinger@guntert.com
10 Dubree, Adam Univ Southern Mississippi 815-383-1818 adam.dubree@usm.edu
11 Gothard, Tony Kiewit 773-917-2202 anthony.gothard@kiewit.com
12 Hannon, John USM 601-266-5550 john.hannon@usm.edu
13 Hilgendorf, Tim Kiewit 208-897-5017 timothy.hilgendorf@kiewit.com
14 Hoeft, Tim Ziegler Inc. 952-885-8256 Tim.Hoeft@zieglercat.com
15 Jahren, Charles Iowa State University 515-294-3829 cjahren@iastate.edu
16 Johnson, Corey Bentley 515-460-4824 corey.johnson@bentley.com
17 Klein, Kevin GOMACO 712-364-3347 klein@gomaco.com
19 Mazur, Chris Leica Machine Control Division 440-364-5330 Chris.Mazur@leicaus.com
20 Morrison, Matthew Leica Machine Control Division 616 821-1812 matthew.morrison@leicaus.com
21 Nicholson, Kent Iowa DOT 515-239-1586 kent.nicholson@dot.iowa.gov
22 Olson, Josh Ziegler Inc. 515-957-3910 joshua.Olson@zieglercat.com
23 Pilcher, Gerhard H.B Rowe & Co 336-786-8318 gerhardp@hbrowe.com
24 Pope, Dick Trimble Navigation Limited 973-245-5576 Dick_Pope@Trimble.com
25 Rasmussen, Terry Caterpillar 309-494-6321 Rasmussen_Terry@cat.com
26 Runyon, Grant Fox Contractors 260-747-7461 grunyon@foxcontractors.com
27 Shell, Dan Corell Contracting 515-221-9669 dshell@corellcontractorinc.com
28 Smith, Gordon ICPA 515-963-0606 gsmith@iowaconcretepaving.org
29 Soar, Karl Hexagon Measurement Tech 44-2476-355768 karl.soar@hexagon-machine-control.com
30 Stoeckel, Kristian Caterpillar 309-494-4258 Stoeckel_Kristian_M@cat.com
31 Subaran, Tulio USM 601-266-6401 tulio.sulbaran@usm.edu
32 Tometich, Tim McAninch 515-267-2500 ttometich@mcaninchcorp.com
33 Van Pelt, Brian 3D Surface Solutions 515-462-5730 brian@3dsurfacesolutions.com
34 Vanderohe, Alan University of Wisconsin-Madison 608-635-2096 vonderohe@centurytel.net
35 Wiese, Dan Starr Equipment 319-350-1941 danwiese@starequip.com
36 White, David Iowa State University 515-294-1463 djwhite@iastate.edu
54

DOT Specifications Obtained by Study
AASHTO
• Requirements for Electronic Data to be Supplied to Construction (6/04/2007)
COLORADO DOT
• Pilot Project Special Provision: Revision of Section 625 Survey Control of
Grading by GPS of RTS Methods (11/3/2008)
• Review of New Specification of Specification Change: Survey Control of Grading
Global Positioning System (GPS) and Robotic Total Station (RTS) Methods (9/05/2008)
Caltrans
• Standard Specifications: State of California Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency Department of Transportation (5/2006)
• Project Delivery Acceleration Toolbox: Improvements to the Project Delivery Process (11/2008)
• Amendments to the Standard Specifications (5/2006)
• EZ Guide (2006)
IOWA DOT
• Iowa Department of Transportation: Developmental Specifications for Global
Positioning System Machine Control Grading (9/18/2007)
MINNESOTA DOT
• Minnesota Department of Transportation office of Land Management Surveying and Mapping
Section Photogrammetry Unit, Special Provisions for: Group 3: Digital Terrain Model/Digital
Elevation Model Products and Services (7/01/2001)
• Office of Land Management Photogrammetric Unit GPS/RTK Accuracy & Procedure Report
Concerning Ground Control for Aerial Photography (2005)
• Surveying and Mapping Manual (6/20/2007)
• Test Profiles for Digital Terrain Models (8/01/2001)
• District Check List (10/10/2005)
• Division II Construction Details
• MC File Types to the Contractor (3/24/2009)
• Standard Specifications for Construction (2005)
NEW YORK STATE DOT

• Revisions to Section 105-10, Survey and Stakeout (9/07/06)
• Revision to Standard Specifications: Section 105-10, Survey and Stakeout; (4/03/06)
• Section 625, Survey Operations, Row Markers & Permanent Survey Markers
WISCONSIN DOT
• Construction and Materials Manual 7.10 Construction Surveying-General (11/2006)
• Construction and Materials Manual 7.18 GPS Machine Guidance (11/2006)
• Construction Staking Subgrade, Item 650.4500
[Workshop Participant: Are you aware of any additional U.S. or International literature
regarding AMG?]
55

Literature on AMG Collected to Date
AGC/DOT Subcommittee on Emerging Technologies. (2008, January). Proposal for use

of Electronic Engineering Data in Construction.
AGPS Inc.- Advanced Geo Positioning Solutions Inc.- Home. (n.d.). . Retrieved August
22, 2009, from http://www.agpsinc.com/.
Alsobrooks, B. (n.d.). Introduction of 3D Technology & Machine Control Systems.
Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/JBI%20GPS%20Machine%20Control-6-28-04.pdf.
Bhat, C. R., Sivaramakrishnan, S., & Bricka, S. (2004). Conversion of Volunteer-Collected
GPS Diary Data into Travel Time Performance Measures: Literature Review, Data
Requirements, and Data
Acquisition Efforts. Research Report, Research and Technology Transfer
Section/Construction Division P.O. Box 5080 Austin, TX 78763-5080. Retrieved
from http://www.utexas.edu/research/ctr/pdf_reports/0_5176_1.pdf.
Brown, C. (2008). GPS and Related Topics. Presented at the Construction Engineers'
Conference 2008.
Brown, C. (n.d.). GPS in Construction TODAY.
Brown, C. (n.d.). The Use of GPS in the Department of Transportation. Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/Brown_GPS%20presentation.pdf.
Ciccarone, R. (2009, January). TRB Regenerating Digital Terrain Data for use with
Contractor's Equipment. Presented at the TRB's annual meeting, Washington DC.
Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/Ciccarone_Transportation%20Research%20Board
%20-%203.pdf.
Compare GPS Products. (n.d.). . Retrieved August 22, 2009, from
http://www.greatlakesinter-
drain.com/Machine_Control_Systems/GPS_Product_Comparison.htm.
CTC & Associates LLC WisDOT Research & Communication Services. (n.d.). GPS in
Construction Staking. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/tsrgpsstaking.pdf.
Dillingham, J., Jensen, T., & Schulist, N. (2007). Best Practices – Machine Control
Evaluation. Final, St. Paul, Minnesota. Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/Best%20Practices%20-
%20Machine%20Control%20Evaluation_Final%20Report%20%28Mn%20DOT%2
9.pdf.
Engst, A. C. (2009). GPS Accuracy Could Start Dropping in 2010. TidBITS. Retrieved
September 14, 2009, from http://db.tidbits.com/article/10276.
Erik, C., Darrell, H., & Dan, B. (2000, April). Global Positioning
System (GPS) Inventory
Standards. Oregon Department of Transportation, Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/gps_standards.pdf.
56

GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM

Significant Challenges in Sustaining and Upgrading Widely Used Capabilities.
(2009). GAO-09-325 Global Positioning System.
GPS Machine Control. (n.d.). . Retrieved August 22, 2009, from
http://www.gpsandmachinecontrol.com/.
GPS/GIS Inspection and Analysis Tools for Highway Construction GPS Data Interface
with SiteManager. (n.d.). . Florida. Retrieved from
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Construction/Engineers/Research/FDOT%20GPS_
GIS%20Schema.pdf.
GPS-Enabled Land Development Tools. (n.d.). . Retrieved August 22, 2009, from
http://www.toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/Sitework/gps-tools.
Grandia, C. (2006, November 27). GPSing Saves Second Guessing. Midwest Contractor,
(November), 6-8.
Hampton, T. (2005, October 3). 3D Grade Control Puts Designers Right in
the Operator’s Seat. Engineering News Record. Retrieved from
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/caes/files/pdf/enr_3D_grade_control_10_05.pdf.
Hampton, T. (2006, April 10). Awards of Excellence. Engineering News Record. Retrieved
from http://www.mcaninchcorp.com/ENR_04_10_2006_v6.pdf.
Hannon, J. J. (2007). NCHRP Synthesis 372 Emerging Technologies for Construction Delivery.
Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/nchrp_syn_372.pdf.
Hannon, J. J. (2008). NCHRP Synthesis 385 Information Technology for
Efficient Project Delivery. Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/nchrp_syn_385.pdf.
Hiremagalur, J., Kin, K. S., Lasky, T. A., & Ravani, B. (2008, November 14). Testing and
Performance Evaluation of Fixed Terrestrial
3D Laser Scanning Systems for Highway Applications. TRB 2009 Annual
Meeting CD-ROM. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/09-1995.pdf.
HNTB. (2004, March). Survey-Grade GPS Reference Station Technology for the Missouri
DOT. HNTB Corporation. Retrieved from
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:aVyOT8fCRx8J:scholar.google.com/&hl
=en.
Index of /NCHRP. (n.d.). . Retrieved September 14, 2009, from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/.
Jenkins, P. (2005). GPS/RTK Accuracy & Procedure Report Concerning Ground Control
for Aerial Photography. Retrieved from
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/bureaus/mis/gis/gps_accuracy.pdf.
Jonasson, S., Dunston, P. S., Ahmed, K., & Hamilton, J. (2002). Factors in Productivity
and Unit Cost for Advanced Machine Guidance. JOURNAL OF
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, (September/October
2002). Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/mc_unit_costs.pdf.
Land Surveys Interim Guidelines for the use of U.S. Customary Units. (2005, March 1). .
Retrieved from
57

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geometronics/SurveysManual/Land%20Surve
ys%20Interim%20Guidelines.pdf.
Lasers GPS Machine Control Specialists. (n.d.). . Retrieved August 22, 2009, from
http://www.rockymountainlasers.com/index.php.
Machine Control Online - Advancing the Positioning Industry - Home. (n.d.). .
Retrieved August 22, 2009, from
http://machinecontrolonline.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1
/.
'Moving Dirt’s Machine Control Update. (2008). Kerville's Moving Dirt Magazine,
(January), 14.
NYSDOT. (2007). Summary of Information Learned From 2007 Projects Using
Automated Construction & Inspection technologies. Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/GPS_Summary%20for%202007%20Tech%20Proje
cts.doc.
O’Connor, M., Elkaim, G., & Parkinson, D. B. (1995). Kinematic GPS for Closed-Loop
Control of Farm and Construction Vehicles. Palm Springs, CA: Stanford University.
Priority, Market-Ready Technologies and Innovations Global Positioning System (GPS)
Surveying. (n.d.). . US Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration. Retrieved from
http://tig.transportation.org/sites/aashtotig/docs/GPS%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.
Priority, Market-Ready Technologies And Innovations High-Definition 3D Surveying.
(2008). Additionally Selected Technologies 2008. Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/HD%203D%20surveying%20fact%20sheet%20pk.
pdf.
Professional Surveyor GPS Machine Control - News/Current Issues Messages. (n.d.). .
Retrieved August 22, 2009, from
http://www.profsurv.com/forum/Professional%20Surveyor%20Magazine%20
Discussion/NewsCurrent-Issues/GPS-Machine-Control-3049.aspx.
Proposal for Use of Electronic Engineering Data in Construction. (2008). . Proposal,
AGC/DOT Subcommittee on Emerging Technologies.
Reed, J. A. (2004, October 15). Office of Engineering and Technology Declares
Geophysical survey Systems, inc. Request for a Waiver of Part 15 to be a "Permit-
But-Disclose" Proceeding for Ex Parte Purposes. Retrieved from
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3262A1.doc.
Rybka, R. (2006). New Technologies for Better Highways. Government Engineering,
(May-June). Retrieved from
ttp://www.govengr.com/ArticlesMay06/highways.pdf.
Sadler, D. (n.d.). Automated Machine Guidance GPS and Machine Controls that can
Assist in Construction Accuracies and Efficiencies. Presented at the 2009
FDOT/FTBA Construction Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Construction/download/ConstConf09/Sadler_Aut
omatedMachineGuidance.pdf.
58

SCS900 Site Controller Software: Installing and Using the PC Emulator. (2008, October
15). . trimble.com. Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/HH_SprtNote_SCS900_Emulator.pdf.
Semones, P. (2004). Using State Plane and Project Datum Coordinates (Second.). Kentucky.
Retrieved from http://transportation.ky.gov/design/survey/projdatum.pdf.
Stansell, T. (2006, February 16). Dual-Use GPS. Presented at the Rocky Mountain Section
of the ION. Retrieved from http://www.rms-ion.org/Presentations/Dual-
Use%20GPS.pdf.
Street, D. (2006, September 12). Business Advantages of Using 3D Technologies Using
Technologies. Presented at the 2006 IHEEP Conference. Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/IHEEP%20091206%20Presentation_Street_INSP.
pdf.
Streett, D. (2006a, December 6). Business Advantages of Using Electronic Engineering
Data. Presented at the AGC/DOT Technical Conference. Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/AGC%20120506%20Electronic%20Engineering%
20Data.pdf.
Streett, D. (2006b, December 6). Survey Changes in Construction. Presented at the
AGC/DOT Technical Conference. Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/AGC%20120506%20Survey%20Changes%20in%2
0Construction.pdf.
Taylor, D. (2006, March 21). Machine Guidance for Highway Construction. Presented at
the 2006 Construction Engineers Conference, North Carolina. Retrieved from
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/Operations/dp_chief_eng/constructionunit/CEC2
006/pdfs/GSTaylor.pdf.
The Integrated Construction Site. (2005). Reed Business Information, a division of Reed
Elsevier Inc. Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/const_bulletin_ic_site_08_05.pdf.
Toines, R. (2006, November). Accugrade Production Study. Retrieved from
http://www.bentleyuser.dk/Documents/Foreningen/Gl.%20arrangementer/A
arsmode%202008/E7%20Machine%20Control%20II%20-
%20Production%20Study.pdf.
Vonderohe, A. (2007). Implementation of GPS Controlled Highway Construction Equipment.
Final, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/Vonderohe2007Apr01.pdf.
Vonderohe, A. (2008). Implementation of GPS Controlled Highway Construction Equipment
Phase II. WisDOT Project ID: 0657-32-24 CMSC: 2006 WO 1.8. Final, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/Vonderohe2008Jan.pdf.
Vonderohe, A., Brockman, K., Whited, G., & Zogg, J. (2008). DEVELOPMENT OF A
SPECIFICATION FOR GPS-MACHINE-GUIDED CONSTRUCTION OF
HIGHWAY SUBGRADE. TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM.
59

Draft Survey Questionnaires
The following are draft survey questions which were utilized in the workshop for feedback from the
Expert Panel members. The surveys have since been edited to incorporate information gained at the
workshop.
NCHRP 10-77 Draft Survey Questions-CONTRACTORS
Task (2). Prepare a detailed plan for the conduct of a worldwide survey of state transportation agencies,
software vendors, equipment vendors, and contractors to determine what types of software and
equipment are currently being used to implement AMG processes. The survey shall cover, at a
minimum, current drafting and design software capabilities; types of electronic files that are submitted
to contractors (e.g., dgn, dwg, dtm, tin, and LandXML), when these files are made available to the
contractors (e.g., pre-bid or post award); and equipment capabilities and reliability. The survey shall also
document the perceived benefits and liabilities of AMG processes. Upon approval of the plan by the
NCHRP, conduct the survey.
Task (5). Identify the current best practices and the challenges associated with the development of a
project design model that is suitable for use by AMG technology. Identify the key factors that should be
considered during the preparation of design models. Identify best practices for performing quality
assurance and quality control on design models, by both the transportation agency and the contractor.
I. Initial data collection (development of DTMs)

II. Model development for design purposes (preferably 3D)
III. Model enhancement for construction purposes (for example: providing offsets between
AMG),
IV. Model conversion to AMG format
V. Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download)
OBJECTIVE of Survey:
(Public Works Construction)
A. Extent of experience with AMG (projects/years)

B. Who creates DTM for AMG?
C. How much of DTM work is reverse engineering?
D. What software is used to create DTM?
E. What hardware is used for AMG?
F. What file formats are required for DTM?
G. What datasets/file formats are agencies sharing?
H. How is training accomplished (DTM/Operators/Field)?
60

I. How is liability mitigated?

J. Greatest risks with AMG?
K. Greatest Benefits with AMG?
L. How is accuracy/quality controlled?
M. If Union or Open Shop, does AMG affect contract requirements with union?
(SHOULD THIS SURVEY HAVE THE OPTION TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS? My opinion is yes)
(SHOULD THIS SURVEY DISCLOSE RESULTS TO-DATE AFTER THE USER COMPLETES? Probably decided by
NCHRP Oversight Panel, but can entice users to complete questionnaire)
____
1. Please state the name of your company: (text box)
2. Please state the primary type of your company:

a. Prime Contractor
b. Sub Contractor
c. Consultant
3. Please state the name of your functional unit: (text box)
4. Please state the name of your functional role: (text box)
5. What is the trade-labor position of your company (U.S Only)?

a. Closed shop (union membership required)
b. Agency shop (union membership optional-dues req)
c. Merit Shop/Open Shop (union membership optional)
6. Does your company utilize Automated Machine Grading (AMG) in publics works projects?
a. Yes
b. No=>BRANCH to Thanks, Goodbye
7. Which agencies allow you to perform AMG?

a. Text box
8. How many years has your company utilized AMG in both private and public works projects?
a. Less than 2 years
b. More than 2 years
c. Less than 5 years
d. More than 5 years
9. Approximately how many AMG projects does your company complete each year?
a. Text box
61

10. Who creates Digital Terrain Models (DTM) to enable AMG for your company?
a. In-house technician(s).
b. 3rd-party consultant
c. Owner/agency: capture w/text box
d. Other:
11. What percentage of the DTMs created for your company are completely reversed engineered
from paper plans and drawings?
a. 100%
b. 50-75%
c. 25-50%
d. 0-25%
e. 0
12. If your owner-agency allows GPS Automatic Machine Grading and Staking technology on
projects, how is quality control (tolerances) specified?
a. Via existing Standard Specifications
b. Via additional specifications in Supplemental Special Provisions, Special Provisions, or
Interim Specification.
c. Not Sure.
d. Other
13. If your owner-agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, WHEN does the
exchange occur?
a. With the Bidding documents.
b. With the Contract documents.
c. After contract is executed and a pre-construction meeting has occurred.
d. Other: (text box)
14. If Electronic Engineered Data (EED) is received from the owner , which of the following datasets
are typically shared? (check all which apply)
a. None.
b. Slope stake notes
c. Mass points and/or break lines
d. Alignment
e. Partial 3D design model (e.g. without intersection detail)
f. Full 3D design model.
g. 3D Surfaces
h. Graphics.
i. Storm and Sanitary.
j. Other (text box)
15. What file formats are the shared datasets distributed by the agency? (array)
Top=>.dgn-.tin-.ttm-.dwg-.landXML-.dxf-ascii(text)-other
a. None.
62

d. Alignment
g. 3D Surfaces
h. Graphics.
16. If you create your own DTM, which software application do you use?
a. Terramodel
b. XYZ
c. Other
17. What equipment brand do you utilize for GPS Base Station, Radio, and Rover? (array)
a. Leica
b. Top-Con
c. Trimble
18. What equipment brand do you utilize on your grading equipment?

a. Leica
b. Top-Con
c. Trimble
19. When an agency shares EED with your company for AMG, do you share EED back (i.e., as-built)?
a. Usually
b. Rarely
c. Never
20. When an agency shares DTM models with your company, what medium is used for the
exchange: (check all that apply)
a. N/A
b. The files are shared via a secure network.
c. The files are shared via a non-secure network.
d. The files are shared via floppy/CD media.
e. The files are shared via DVD media.
f. The files are shared via flash storage media.
g. Other: (text box)
21. Who is primarily responsible for ensuring the DTM conforms to the contract documents?
a. Contractor
b. Consultant on subcontract to the contractor
c. Agency
d. Consultant on subcontract to the agency
e. Other: (text box)
22. How are design changes handled after the original DTM model has been issued?
63

a. N/A
b. A new model with corrections is issued to the contractor.
c. The contractor is notified and is responsible for making the changes in its version of the
model.
d. Other (text box)
23. Has your company been involved in any ‘claims for equitable adjustment’ or arbitration
associated with shared electronic design and/or DTMs?
a. Yes
b. No
24. In your opinion, the sharing of EED:

a. Increases the likelihood of claims/change orders.
b. Decreases the likelihood of claims/change orders.
c. Has no effect on the likelihood of claims/change orders.
d. No opinion.
25. How do your construction personnel perform QA/QC when Automated Machine Grading is in
process?
a. N/A
b. Grade checking with GPS rover
c. Grade checking with Total Station collector
d. Grade checking with laser technology
26. At what intervals do your construction personnel perform QA/QC when Automated Machine
Grading is in process?
a. N/A
b. By Time period (weekly, daily, hourly) (array-flex labels)
c. By Distance (station, feet, intersection) (array-flex labels)
d. Other: text box(?)
27. How do your field personnel receive primary training for the required software?
a. Our company trains internally.
b. 3rd-party consultants..
c. The hardware/software vendors train as part of purchase agreement.
d. N/A
28. How do your field personnel receive primary training for the required hardware?
d. N/A
29. If your company performs Automated Machine Grading on construction projects, please rate
the following (array)( Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, No Opinion)
a. Automated machine grading compresses the construction schedule.
64

b. Automated machine grading exposes errors in design in sufficient time not to require re-
work.
c. Automated machine grading is more accurate than conventional methods.
d. Receiving EED from owner-agency exposes them to increased liability.
e. Sharing EED with contractors contributes to cooperation with the owner-agency.
30. In your opinion, rate the following factors as to their influence on the accuracy of DTMs: (array-
flex label)(1=very important, 2, 3,4=not important)
a. Number of original data points in DTM.
b. File types of datasets shared.
c. Number of data translations between software applications (iterations of
imports/exports).
d. DTM constructability review.
31. In your opinion, rate the following factors as to their influence on the accuracy of AMG: (array-
a. File size of DTM(s).
b. DTM constructability review.
c. Training/competency of model builder(s).
d. Training/competency of field personnel (rovers-checkers).
e. Training/competency of equipment operators.
f. Training/competency of owner-agency inspectors.
g. In field QA/QC program/procedures.
h. Other: (text box)
32. If your company utilizes union labor, does AMG affect contract requirements with union?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Will find out at next collective bargaining.
d. N/A
33. In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors with AMG?
(array-flex label)(1=highest risk, 2, 3,4=lowest risk)
a. Lack of cooperation by agency inspectors
b. High initial investment in equipment-lack of ROI data
c. Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internal)
d. Level of training required to implement (internal)
e. Dependence upon 3rd-party consultants for DTM creation
f. Other: (text box)
34. In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors with AMG?
(array-flex label)(1=highest benefit, 2, 3,4=lowest benefit)
a. Labor savings
b. Project Schedule compression
c. Avoidance of rework-re-grading
d. Accuracy of grading (tolerances)
e. Accuracy of Pay Item calculation
f. As-built documentation
65

35. Is there interest in more complete data collection, such as capturing streams of machine
position data along with [possibly] compaction data? [AKA, the connected job site?]
a. Yes
b. No
c. Other: (text box)
36. Can we follow up with you via telephone?

a. Yes-Name, phone number (text box)
b. No.
66

NCHRP 10-77 Draft Survey Questions-CONTRACTORS
VI. Initial data collection (development of DTMs)

VII. Model development for design purposes (preferably 3D)
VIII. Model enhancement for construction purposes (for example: providing offsets between
AMG),
IX. Model conversion to AMG format
X. Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download)
(Public Works Construction)
N. Extent of experience with AMG (projects/years)

O. Who creates DTM for AMG?
P. How much of DTM work is reverse engineering?
Q. What software is used to create DTM?
R. What hardware is used for AMG?
S. What file formats are required for DTM?
T. What datasets/file formats are agencies sharing?
U. How is training accomplished (DTM/Operators/Field)?
V. How is liability mitigated?
W. Greatest risks with AMG?
X. Greatest Benefits with AMG?
Y. How is accuracy/quality controlled?
Z. If Union or Open Shop, does AMG affect contract requirements with union?
67

_____
1. Please state the name of your company: (text box)
2. Please state the primary type of your company:

a. Prime Contractor
b. Sub Contractor
c. Consultant
5. What is the trade-labor position of your company (U.S Only)?

a. Closed shop (union membership required)
b. Agency shop (union membership optional-dues req)
c. Merit Shop/Open Shop (union membership optional)
6. Does your company utilize Automated Machine Grading (AMG) in public works projects?
a. Yes
b. No=>BRANCH to Thanks, Goodbye
7. Which agencies allow you to perform AMG?
a. Text box
8. How many years has your company utilized AMG in both private and public works projects?
a. Less than 2 years
b. More than 2 years
c. Less than 5 years
d. More than 5 years
9. Approximately how many AMG projects does your company complete each year?
a. Text box
10. Who creates Digital Terrain Models (DTM) to enable AMG for your company?
a. In-house technician(s).
b. 3rd-party consultant
c. Owner/agency: capture w/text box
d. Other:
11. What percentage of the DTMs created for your company are completely reversed engineered
from paper plans and drawings?
a. 100%
b. 50-75%
c. 25-50%
d. 0-25%
e. 0
68

12. If your owner-agency allows GPS Automatic Machine Grading and Staking technology on
c. Not Sure.
d. Other
13. If your owner-agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, WHEN does the
exchange occur?
14. If Electronic Engineered Data (EED) is received from the owner , which of the following datasets
are typically shared? (check all which apply)
a. None.
d. Alignment
g. 3D Surfaces
h. Graphics.
j. Other (text box)
15. What file formats are the shared datasets distributed by the agency? (array)
Top=>.dgn-.tin-.ttm-.dwg-.landXML-.dxf-ascii(text)-other
a. None.
d. Alignment
g. 3D Surfaces
h. Graphics.
16. If you create your own DTM, which software application do you use?
a. Terramodel
b. XYZ
c. Other
17. What equipment brand do you utilize for GPS Base Station, Radio, and Rover? (array)
a. Leica
b. Top-Con
c. Trimble
69

18. What equipment brand do you utilize on your grading equipment?

a. Leica
b. Top-Con
c. Trimble
19. When an agency shares EED with your company for AMG, do you share EED back (i.e., as-built)?
a. Usually
b. Rarely
c. Never
20. When an agency shares DTM models with your company, what medium is used for the
exchange: (check all that apply)
a. N/A
21. Who is primarily responsible for ensuring the DTM conforms to the contract documents?
a. Contractor
c. Agency
22. How are design changes handled after the original DTM model has been issued?
a. N/A
model.
d. Other (text box)
23. Has your company been involved in any ‘claims for equitable adjustment’ or arbitration
associated with shared electronic design and/or DTMs?
a. Yes
b. No
24. In your opinion, the sharing of EED:

a. Increases the likelihood of claims/change orders.
b. Decreases the likelihood of claims/change orders.
c. Has no effect on the likelihood of claims/change orders.
d. No opinion.
70

25. How do your construction personnel perform QA/QC when Automated Machine Grading is in
process?
a. N/A
26. At what intervals do your construction personnel perform QA/QC when Automated Machine
Grading is in process?
a. N/A
b. By Time period (weekly, daily, hourly) (array-flex labels)
c. By Distance (station, feet, intersection) (array-flex labels)
d. Other: text box(?)
27. How do your field personnel receive primary training for the required software?
d. N/A
28. How do your field personnel receive primary training for the required hardware?
d. N/A
29. If your company performs Automated Machine Grading on construction projects, please rate
the following (array)( Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, No Opinion)
work.
d. Receiving EED from owner-agency exposes them to increased liability.
e. Sharing EED with contractors contributes to cooperation with the owner-agency.
30. In your opinion, rate the following factors as to their influence on the accuracy of DTMs: (array-
a. Number of original data points in DTM.
b. File types of datasets shared.
c. Number of data translations between software applications (iterations of
imports/exports).
d. DTM constructability review.
31. In your opinion, rate the following factors as to their influence on the accuracy of AMG: (array-
71

a. File size of DTM(s).

b. DTM constructability review.
c. Training/competency of model builder(s).
d. Training/competency of field personnel (rovers-checkers).
e. Training/competency of equipment operators.
f. Training/competency of owner-agency inspectors.
g. In field QA/QC program/procedures.
h. Other: (text box)
32. If your company utilizes union labor, does AMG affect contract requirements with union?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Will find out at next collective bargaining.
d. N/A
33. In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors with AMG?
(array-flex label)(1=highest risk, 2, 3,4=lowest risk)
a. Lack of cooperation by agency inspectors
b. High initial investment in equipment-lack of ROI data
c. Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internal)
d. Level of training required to implement (internal)
e. Dependence upon 3rd-party consultants for DTM creation
f. Other: (text box)
34. In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors with AMG?
(array-flex label)(1=highest benefit, 2, 3,4=lowest benefit)
a. Labor savings
b. Project Schedule compression
c. Avoidance of rework-re-grading
d. Accuracy of grading (tolerances)
e. Accuracy of Pay Item calculation
f. As-built documentation
a. Yes
b. No

b. No.
72

NCHRP 10-77 Draft Survey Questions-PLANNING (AGENCY)
XI. Initial data collection (development of DTMs)

XII. Model development for design purposes (preferably 3D)
XIII. Model enhancement for construction purposes (for example: providing offsets between
AMG),
XIV. Model conversion to AMG format
XV. Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download)
A. How prevalent is GPS utilized in agency surveying (initial)?

B. How prevalent is GPS utilized in agency surveying (control layout)?
C. What Networks are the surveyors using?
D. How accurate do the surveyors perceive GPS networks to be vs. conventional?
E. What equipment are the surveyors using?
F. How accurate do the surveyors perceive GPS equipment to be?
G. What datasets do the surveyors forward to the Design Functional Area?
H. What formats are the datasets forwarded to the Design Functional Area?
I. Does GPS surveying promote 3D Digital Terrain Modeling?
1. Functional Role/Job Title?
2. How would you describe most of your agency’s survey work the past few years?
a. New construction routes
b. Retrofit of existing routes
c. Other
A. How prevalent is GPS utilized in agency surveying (initial)?

3. Does your agency utilize GPS surveying in the planning function?
a. No
b. Yes-in some District offices.
c. Yes-in all districts.
d. Do not know.
73

4. IF your agency utilizes GPS for initial surveying, which of the following data is collected utilizing
GPS?
a. Terrain surfaces
b. Alignment geometry
c. Cross-Sections
d. Terrain features
e. Structure locations
f. Other
5. Which technology is most utilized in collection of topographic data?

a. Conventional surveying (Total Stationing and staking)
b. GPS
c. Photogrammetric
d. Other
6. GPS is utilized in out functional unit for:

a. Positioning photogrammetric targets.
b. Positioning section corners.
c. alignments
d. topographic features
e. secondary control for design
B. How prevalent is GPS utilized in agency surveying (control layout)?

7. Is GPS utilized when projects are control-staked for contractors?
a. Always when signal available.
b. Occasionally
c. Never.
8. When projects are control-staked WITHOUT GPS for contractors (Centerline, Offsets, Grade
Sheets), how many times (iterations) are the points interpolated from 2D paper plans?
a. More than twice.
b. More than 5 iterations.
c. More than 10 iterations.
d. Other
9. The design survey data used for project control is:

a. digital/electronic
b. interpolated
c. other
10. Does your survey software merge horizontal and vertical alignment data for control-stakeout?
a. yes
b. no
c. other
C. What Networks are the surveyors using?
74

11. If your agency utilizes GPS for surveying, which of the following reference control technologies
are utilized?
a. Real-Time Kinematics (RTK)
b. High Accuracy Reference Networks (HARN)
c. National Spatial Reference System/Continuously Operating Reference Stations
(NSRS/CORS)
d. Other
12. Does your agency perform real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS Surveying?
e. Yes
f. No
13. Does your agency have Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS Surveying Specifications?
g. Yes
h. No
D. How accurate do the surveyors perceive GPS networks to be vs. conventional?

14. In your opinion, How accurate is the initial topographic data collected?
a. Very accurate (range)
b. Mildly Accurate (range)
c. Low Accuracy (range)
d. Not accurate (range)
15. How old typically is the topographic data used for control?
a. Old surveys (range)
b. Photogrammetry (range)
c. Other
16. Rank your perception of accuracy between the following technologies for the collection of
topographic data:
a. Conventional surveying (Total Stationing and staking)
b. GPS
c. Photogrammetric
d. Other
E. What equipment are the surveyors using?

17. Does you agency mix equipment from various GPS survey manufacturers?
a. yes
b. no
18. What vendors supply your GPS survey equip?

a. Trimble
b. TopCon
c. Leica
d. Other
F. How accurate do the surveyors perceive GPS equipment to be?

19. How is CALIBRATION of survey equipment...?
75

a. Rotation
b. Scaling
c. Translation
d. Coordinates of the azimuth
20. What level of accuracy does your GPS equipment typically obtain Horizontally?
a. 2cm or less
b. greater than 2cm
c. other
21. What level of accuracy does your GPS equipment typically obtain Vertically?
a. 2cm or less
b. greater than 2cm
c. other
G. What datasets do the surveyors forward to the Design Functional Area?

22. What Software is used in used in collecting and forwarding data from the previous question?
a. Trimble GPSBase
b. ?
c. ?
d. Other
23. Which of the following datasets are forwarded to the Design function by your agency’s Planning
function in digital format?
a. All in a DTM
b. Surface Layer Elevations
c. Selected Terrain Features
d. Right-of-Way boundaries
e. Center-Line Control
f. Transition Control
g. Structure Locations
h. Other
24. When project horizontal control is forwarded to your agency’s Design Function, which of the
following is included (check all that apply)?
i. HARN/CORS monument locations.
j. Horizontal datum, Sate Plain Coordinates
k. Adjustment factors for grid to localized system
l. Grid bearing and distances from monuments
m. Vertical datum for elevations
n. Points used to establish baseline
o. Coordinates and graphic location of azimuth pairs
p. Localized coordinates for the beginning and ending stations
q. Horizontal and vertical data
r. Localized Coordinates
s. Horix and vert adjustment data
t. Geoid model definition
76

u. Adjustment and error summary

v. Control point information
w. Observations used to produce a site localization
x. Written descriptions/text files
H. What formats are the datasets forwarded to the Design Functional Area?
25. Which FILE FORMATS of the following datasets are forwarded to the Design function by your
agency’s Planning function in digital format? (Expand to multiple questions for each dataset or
matrix)
a. All in a DTM (ASCII, LandXML, Terramodel, other)
b. Surface Layer Elevations (ASCII, LandXML, Terramodel, other)
c. Selected Terrain Features (ASCII, LandXML, Terramodel, other)
d. Right-of-Way boundaries (ASCII, LandXML, Terramodel, other)
e. Center-Line Control (ASCII, LandXML, Terramodel, other)
f. Transition Control (ASCII, LandXML, Terramodel, other)
g. Structure Locations (ASCII, LandXML, Terramodel, other)
h. Other
I. Does GPS surveying promote 3D Digital Terrain Modeling?

26. Does your agency create 3-D Digital Terrain Models (DTM) from surveying in the planning
function?
a. No
b. Yes-in some District offices.
c. Yes-in all districts.
d. Do not know.
27. When survey data is sent to your agency’s Design Function, please choose any additional
information beyond typical which is included:
a. Project Horizontal Control Sheets including HARN/CORS references.
b. GPS Calibration Equipment
c. Baseline Information
Uncategorized:
28. If your agency utilizes GPS surveying, which technology is the most intensive for training
new/existing personnel?
a. Conventional Surveying (Total Stations/staking)
b. GPS
29. If your agency utilizes GPS surveying, which tasks have shown the most efficiency in labor
(survey man-hours) savings?
a. None
b. Crew-trips to site are lessened.
c. Conventional survey crews are more productive.
d. Reduction in data collection time of instruments.
e. Weather delays are lessened.
77

f. Other.
30. Does your agency have standardized procedures for the collection of GPS survey data?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
31. In your opinion, compared to conventional surveying, what are the advantages of using GPS
technology?
a. The overall process is faster
b. GPS requires less labor
c. GPS requires less training of personnel
d. GPS is more accurate
e. Other
78

NCHRP 10-77 Draft Survey Questions-PROCUREMENT/CONSTRUCTION (AGENCY)
XVI. Initial data collection (development of DTMs)

XVII. Model development for design purposes (preferably 3D)
XVIII. Model enhancement for construction purposes (for example: providing offsets between
AMG),
XIX. Model conversion to AMG format
XX. Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download)
A. What datasets are received from Design Function?

B. Is agency sharing Electronic Engineering Data (EED) with contractors?
Perception-Should agency share EED with contractors?
C. When is agency sharing EED with contractors?
Perception-when should agency share EED with contractors?
D. Should costs be absorbed or Pay Item?
E. Does agency have AMG specifications, directives, special provisions?
F. How is liability for design errors in EED and version change handled?
Perception-how should liability be handled?
G. Who is responsible for creation of machine readable DTM?
Perception-who should be responsible for creating DTM?
H. Are inspectors using GPS/Total Station/Laser technology?
I. Are inspectors using DTMs?
J. Do DTMs make earthwork pay item calculations more efficient/accurate?
K. Is training available for contractors/agency?
L. Does a typical contract require the contractor to provide agency personnel with the means to
electronically check grades?
79

M. Is there interest in more complete data collection, such as capturing streams of machine
_____
1. Please state the name of your agency: (text box)

4. Does your agency share Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors for Automated
Machine Grading?
a. Yes (QUESTIONS BRANCH FROM HERE)
b. No (QUESTIONS BRANCH FROM HERE)
IF NO
5. In your opinion, which areas should a guidance specification in public works agencies address?
a. GPS Machine Guidance
b. Construction GPS Subgrade Staking
c. Both GPS Machine Guidance and Construction Subgrade Staking
d. Procedures for sharing EED.
e. Not Sure
f. Other
6. Regarding contractor GPS Automated Machine Guidance , how should public works agencies
specify this technology for construction projects?
a. Mandate for all projects
b. Mandate for specific projects
c. Allow on all projects
d. Allow on specific projects
e. Not sure
f. Other
7. Regarding contractor GPS Subgrade Staking, how should public works agencies specify this
technology for construction projects?
e. Not sure
80

f. Other
8. A Digital Terrain Model(DTM) is required to perform GPS Machine Guidance and GPS Subgrade
Staking. Some of this data is generated by agencies in the design process. In your opinion, who
should be primarily responsible for creation of the DTM?
a. Contractor
c. Agency
e. Other
Staking. Some of this data is generated agencies in the design process. In your opinion, who
should be primarily responsible for ensuring the DTM conforms to the contract documents?
a. Contractor
c. Agency
e. Other
Staking. Some of this data is generated by agencies in the design process. In your opinion,
should public works agencies share this data with contractors?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not Sure
d. Other
11. If the contractor is allowed to utilize GPS Automated Machine Grading and/or Subgrade Staking
by utilization of its own Digital Terrain Model (DTM), should the contractor share this data with
public works agencies?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not Sure
d. Other
12. If public works agencies allow GPS Automatic Machine Grading and Staking technology on
projects, how in your opinion should quality control (tolerances) be specified?
c. Not Sure.
d. Other
13. Some agencies with GPS AMG/Staking specifications are requiring contractors to share
equipment and even train agency personnel during the course of the project. If public works
81

agencies allows GPS Automatic Machine Grading and Staking technology on projects, should a
separate Bid Item be included in the Proposal/Contract?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not Sure
14. If public works agencies elect to share Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors in
order to efficiently deliver projects and project quality, how should the agency's liability (for
errors in the DTM) be limited?
a. Not an issue if there is no sharing.
b. Liability Waiver included as part of the contract documents.
c. Not sure.
d. Other.
15. If public works agencies elect to share Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors,
WHEN, in your opinion, should the exchange occur?
IF YES
16. Which areas does your agency's AMG specification address?

a. GPS Machine Guidance
b. Construction GPS Subgrade Staking
c. Both GPS Machine Guidance and Construction Subgrade Staking
d. Procedures for sharing EED.
e. Not Sure
f. Other
17. Regarding contractor GPS Automated Machine Guidance , how does your agency's AMG
specification address this technology for construction projects?
e. Not sure
f. Other
18. Regarding contractor GPS Subgrade Staking, how does your agency's AMG specification address
this technology for construction projects?
e. Not sure
82

f. Other
Staking. Some of this data is generated by public works agencies in the design process. Does
your agency share this data with contractors?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not Sure
d. Other
20. If the contractor is allowed to utilize GPS Automated Machine Grading and/or Subgrade Staking
by utilization of its own Digital Terrain Model (DTM), does the contractor share this data back to
your agency?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not Sure
d. Other
21. If your agency allows GPS Automatic Machine Grading and Staking technology on projects, how
is quality control (tolerances) specified?
c. Not Sure.
d. Other
22. Some agencies with GPS AMG/Staking specifications are requiring contractors to share
equipment and even train agency personnel during the course of the project. Does your agency
provide a separate Bid Item for AMG or GPS Staking in the Proposal/Contract?
a. Yes-AMG
b. Yes-GPS Staking
c. No
d. Not Sure
23. If your agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors in order to efficiently
deliver projects and project quality, how is the agency's liability (for errors in the EED) limited?
a. Not an issue if there is no sharing.
b. Liability Waiver included as part of the contract documents.
c. Not sure.
d. Other.
24. If your agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, how does your agency
provide the 'Engineer's Stamp' of approval on digital models or datasets.
a. Only the paper drawings are stamped and they govern.
b. We have no method of approving the digital data.
c. Electronic signatures.
83

25. If your agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, WHEN does the
exchange occur?
26. If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, what datasets are exchanged? (check all
which apply):
a. None.
c. Mass points and/or break lines derived from the 2D plans
d. Alignment
g. 3D Surfaces
h. Graphics.
j. Electronic contract documents.
k. Other (text box)
27. If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, what file formats are exchanged? (check all
which apply):
a. .dgn
b. .tin
c. .ttm
d. .dwg
e. .landXML
f. .dxf
28. If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, what medium is used for the exchange:
(check all that apply)
a. N/A
Staking. Some of this data is generated by agencies in the design process. Who is primarily
responsible for creation of the DTM?
a. Contractor
c. Agency
84

e. Other
Staking. Some of this data is generated by agencies in the design process. Who is primarily
responsible for ensuring the DTM conforms to the contract documents?
a. Contractor
c. Agency
e. Other
31. If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, are the contractors involved in the QA/QC
process?
a. N/A
b. No-contractors must make any corrections to the DTM at their own risk.
c. Yes-if contractors discover errors, we have a process of incorporating the corrections
back into the design/DTM model.
32. If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, how are design changes handled after the
original model has been issued?
a. N/A
model.
d. Other (text box)
33. Has your agency been involved in any ‘claims for equitable adjustment’ or arbitration associated
with shared electronic design and/or DTMs?
a. Yes
b. No
BRANCH BACK
34. Do your field inspectors have use of GPS rovers?

a. Yes, on most projects.
b. Yes, on selected projects.
c. No.
d. Other.
35. Do your field inspectors have use of any of the following?

a. Total Station data collectors
b. Laser positioning equipment
c. Handheld computers (for use in field)
d. Tablet computers (for use in field)
85

36. Does a typical contract involving AMG require the contractor to provide agency personnel with
the means to electronically check grades?
a. Yes
b. No
37. Do your field inspectors have access to 3D Terrain Models (DTMs)?

a. Yes, on most projects.
b. Yes, on selected projects.
c. No.
d. Other.
38. How do your construction inspectors perform QA/QC when Automated Machine Grading is in
process?
a. N/A
39. If your construction inspectors utilize 3D Terrain Models (DTMs) in the field, do you have any
data or feedback to support the following statements?
a. Errors and omissions are more easily discovered.
b. Pay item calculations are more efficient.
c. Pay item calculations are more accurate.
d. N/A
40. If your construction inspectors utilize 3D Terrain Models (DTMs) in the field, how do they
receive training for the required software and hardware?
a. Our agency trains internally.
b. The contractor trains the inspectors as part of contract/bid item.
c. The hardware/software vendors train the inspectors as part of purchase agreement.
d. N/A
41. If your agency allows Automated Machine Grading on construction projects, please rate the
following (array)( Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, No Opinion)
work.
d. Sharing EED with contractors exposes the agency to liability.
e. Sharing EED with contractors contributes to cooperation with the contractor.
a. Yes
86

b. No

b. No.
Welcome help with further questions addressing:
• ‘Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download)'

• when these files are made available to the contractors (e.g., pre-bid or post award);
• equipment capabilities and reliability.
• perceived benefits and liabilities of AMG processes.
• Identify the current best practices and the challenges associated with the development of a
project design model that is suitable for use by AMG technology
• key factors that should be considered during the preparation of design models.
• Identify best practices for performing quality assurance and quality control on design models, by
both the transportation agency and the contractor
87

Selected Pictures
NCHRP 10-77 Automated Machine Guidance Workshop
Altoona, Iowa
October 1-2, 2009
Picture 1: Due to the excellent relationship between the Research Team and industry,
Ziegler graciously provided their facility to host the workshop
Picture 2: Cat legacy equipment in the entrance of Ziegler facility
88

Picture 3: Welcome Session. The participants were debriefed regarding the project
objective and workshop dynamic
Picture 4: Breakout discussion with small active group sharing opportunities and
challenges regarding Automatic Machine Guidance moderated by a member of the
research team
89

Picture 5: Representative of a breakout group presents to all members of the

workshop a summary of the discussion that was produced by the small group
Picture 6: Representative of a breakout answering questions regarding the summary

results
90

Picture 7: Participants of the workshop walking around the meeting room voting for
the most important opportunities and challenges of Automatic Machine Guidance
Picture 8: Resulting raw votes received for the most important opportunities and
challenges of one group
91

Picture 9: Resulting raw votes received for the most important challenges
summarized by another team
Picture 10: Processed votes of opportunities and challenges for Automatic Machine
Guidance presented to all participants of the Workshop (Day 2)
92

Picture 11: AMG Workshop participants
93
APPENDIX B: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

CONTENTS
SURVEYING TECHNOLOGY (PRE-CONSTRUCTION) ........................................................................ 1
Satellite Systems (e.g., GPS, GNSS) ............................................................................................... 1
Stationary Laser Scanning ............................................................................................................. 10
Mobile Laser Scanning .................................................................................................................. 10
Infra-Red Sensing .......................................................................................................................... 12
Others ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Low Distortion Coordinate System ............................................................................................... 14
Geodetic/Map Projection ............................................................................................................... 16
Survey control for AMG ................................................................................................................ 17
DESIGN ...................................................................................................................................................... 20
Electronic Data, Geometrical Drafting .......................................................................................... 20
Mechanistic Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 31
CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 31
Earthworks (e.g., excavation, placement) ...................................................................................... 31
Paving (e.g., PCC, HMA, milling, etc.) ......................................................................................... 43
AUTOMATION ......................................................................................................................................... 52
Remote Sensing Based ................................................................................................................... 52
Response Analysis Based .............................................................................................................. 60
Others ............................................................................................................................................. 61
SPECIFICATIONS/STANDARDS ............................................................................................................ 73
U.S. DOT ....................................................................................................................................... 73
International ................................................................................................................................... 84
AS-BUILT GEOMETRIC, PRODUCTIVITY, AND QA/QC DOCUMENTATION............................... 84
Geometrical Mapping .................................................................................................................... 84
Mechanistic Property Mapping (e.g., Intelligent Compaction)...................................................... 87
COST OF AMG .......................................................................................................................................... 87
Construction ................................................................................................................................... 87
Equipment ...................................................................................................................................... 89
Life-Cycle ...................................................................................................................................... 91
EDUCATION/TRAINING ......................................................................................................................... 92
On-line ........................................................................................................................................... 92
Classroom-based ............................................................................................................................ 96
REAL PROJECT SAMPLE ....................................................................................................................... 96
B-i

SURVEYING TECHNOLOGY (PRE-CONSTRUCTION)
Satellite Systems (e.g., GPS, GNSS)
Aðalsteinsson, D. H. (2008), Gps Machine Guidance in Construction Equipment, Háskólinn Í Reykjavík.

The aim of this project is to compare the performance of a excavator with GPS guidance system
on the one hand and on the other hand a excavator in same type of work, which was done the
traditional way and with surveying. A predetermined construction job was performed. i.e. the
digging of trench in two different ways. On one hand a surveyor performed the surveying needed
before the job was performed, and while it was done, and the excavator was working according to
those measurements and stakes. On the other hand the same job was performed by a excavator
which was equipped with GPS machine guidance and no surveying performed by surveyors, but
the job was preformed according to a model of the project, which was loaded into the machine
equipment. Both jobs were monitored with precise measuring equipment. The outcome was
measurable realistic comparison of two work procedures on comparable work, regarding time,
material and productivity. The outcome should tell contractors whether GPS machine guidance is
optimal and leading to increased profitability.
Adams, T. M., N. Koncz and A. P. Vonderohe (2000), Functional requirements for a comprehensive
transportation location referencing system, paper presented at Proceedings of the North American Travel
Monitoring Exhibition and Conference.
Transportation agencies manage data that is referenced in one, two, three, and four dimensions.
Location referencing system (LRS) data models vary across transportation agencies and often
within organizations as well. This has resulted in failed attempts and abandoned efforts to
interoperate business functions and / or integrate data. A number of transportation agencies,
through recognition of the significance of spatially-referenced information to their operations,
have identified the need for comprehensive management of location referencing.
What is lacking is a clear set of functional requirements for a comprehensive location referencing
system. Detailed functional requirements and a comprehensive data model are necessary so
transportation agencies can implement improved transportation information systems and
advanced GIS-T technology.
Linearly-referenced data constitutes the majority of data managed by transportation
agencies. However, agencies are now using GPS technology for applications ranging from
highway inventory to incident management. Much more detail is needed on functional
requirements for data in higher dimensions and for integration across dimensions. This paper
reviews the functional requirements for a comprehensive spatial / temporal referencing system
that were identified by a workshop of stakeholders in asset management, highway operations,
traffic management, and transit.
Among the requirements identified by the stakeholders is that a comprehensive LRS data model
supports temporal referencing. Temporal aspects of transportation data impact applications
ranging from pavement management (for historical records) to transit (for arrival times), to
commercial vehicle operations (for vehicle tracking), to congestion management (for dynamic
network modeling).
Administration, U.S. D. o. T. F. H. (2008), Priority, Market-Ready Technologies and Innovations Global

Positioning System (GPS) Surveying, edited, p. 2, US Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration.
B-1

Bhat, C. R., S. Sivaramakrishnan, and S. Bricka (2004), Conversion of Volunteer-Collected GPS Diary
Data into Travel Time Performance Measures: Literature Review, Data Requirements, and Data
Acquisition Efforts, Research Report Rep. FHWA/TX-05/0-5176-1, Research and Technology Transfer
Section/Construction Division P.O. Box 5080 Austin, TX 78763-5080.
Conventional travel-survey methodologies require the collection of detailed activity-travel
information, which impose a significant burden on respondents, thereby adversely impacting the
quality and quantity of data obtained. Advances in the Global Positioning System (GPS)
technology has provided transportation planners with an alternative and powerful tool for more
accurate travel-data collection with minimal user burden. The data recorded by GPS devices,
however, does not directly yield travel information; the navigational streams have to be processed
and the travel patterns derived from it. The focus of this research project is to develop software to
automate the processing of raw GPS data and to generate outputs of activity travel patterns in the
conventional travel-diary format. The software will identify trips and characterize them by
several attributes including trip-end locations, trip purpose, time of day, distance, and speed.
Within the overall focus of the research, this report describes the data collection equipment
specifications, data collection protocols, and data formats, and presents a comprehensive
synthesis of the state of the practice/art in processing GPS data to derive travel diaries. This
synthesis is intended as the basis for developing input specifications and processing algorithms
for our software. A second objective of this report is to identify the data requirements for the
software development purposes and document the efforts undertaken to acquire the data.
Brown, C. (2008), GPS and Related Topics, in Construction Engineers' Conference 2008, edited.
This presentation discusses GPS for stake out and auotomated machine grading.
Chaplain, C. T. (2009), Global Positioning System: Significant Challenges in Sustaining and Upgrading
Widely Used CapabilitiesRep., Office of Public Affairs, U.S Government Accountability Office (GAO).
The Global Positioning System (GPS), which provides position, navigation, and timing data to
users worldwide, has become essential to U.S. national security and a key tool in an expanding
array of public service and commercial applications at home and abroad. The United States
provides GPS data free of charge. The Air Force, which is responsible for GPS acquisition, is in
the process of modernizing GPS. In light of the importance of GPS, the modernization effort, and
international efforts to develop new systems, GAO was asked to undertake a broad review of
GPS. Specifically, GAO assessed progress in (1) acquiring GPS satellites, (2) acquiring the
ground control and user equipment necessary to leverage GPS satellite capabilities, and evaluated
(3) coordination among federal agencies and other organizations to ensure GPS missions can be
accomplished. To carry out this assessment, GAO's efforts included reviewing and analyzing
program documentation, conducting its own analysis of Air Force satellite data, and interviewing
key officials.
It is uncertain whether the Air Force will be able to acquire new satellites in time to
maintain current GPS service without interruption. If not, some military operations and some
civilian users could be adversely affected. (1) In recent years, the Air Force has struggled to
successfully build GPS satellites within cost and schedule goals; it encountered significant
technical problems that still threaten its delivery schedule; and it struggled with a different
contractor. As a result, the current IIF satellite program has overrun its original cost estimate by
about $870 million and the launch of its first satellite has been delayed to November 2009--
almost 3 years late. (2) Further, while the Air Force is structuring the new GPS IIIA program to
prevent mistakes made on the IIF program, the Air Force is aiming to deploy the next generation
of GPS satellites 3 years faster than the IIF satellites. GAO's analysis found that this schedule is
optimistic, given the program's late start, past trends in space acquisitions, and challenges facing
B-2

the new contractor. Of particular concern is leadership for GPS acquisition, as GAO and other
studies have found the lack of a single point of authority for space programs and frequent
turnover in program managers have hampered requirements setting, funding stability, and
resource allocation. (3) If the Air Force does not meet its schedule goals for development of GPS
IIIA satellites, there will be an increased likelihood that in 2010, as old satellites begin to fail, the
overall GPS constellation will fall below the number of satellites required to provide the level of
GPS service that the U.S. government commits to. Such a gap in capability could have wide-
ranging impacts on all GPS users, though there are measures the Air Force and others can take to
plan for and minimize these impacts. In addition to risks facing the acquisition of new GPS
satellites, the Air Force has not been fully successful in synchronizing the acquisition and
development of the next generation of GPS satellites with the ground control and user equipment,
thereby delaying the ability of military users to fully utilize new GPS satellite capabilities.
Diffuse leadership has been a contributing factor, given that there is no single authority
responsible for synchronizing all procurements and fielding related to GPS, and funding has been
diverted from ground programs to pay for problems in the space segment. DOD and others
involved in ensuring GPS can serve communities beyond the military have taken prudent steps to
manage requirements and coordinate among the many organizations involved with GPS.
However, GAO identified challenges in the areas of ensuring civilian requirements can be met
and ensuring GPS compatibility with other new, potentially competing global space-based
positioning, navigation, and timing systems.
Cruddace, P. (2007), Ordnance Survey positions Britain for improved GPS services, GEO Informatics.
Ordnance Survey is adding more Global Positioning System (GPS) reference stations in
northwest Scotland to improve its national infrastructure for receiving satellite-based positioning
signals. Eleven new receivers to the north of the Great Glen will underpin a range of publicly
available GPS correction services aimed at surveyors, highway engineers, utility companies and
others in need of pinpoint positioning information. An explanation of the background and
technical challenges of the project and the market potential of related services.
Ctc, L. L. C. W. R. Associates and S. Communication (2006), GPS in Construction StakingRep.,

Universtiy of Wisconsin-Madison.
The Construction and Materials Support Center at the University of Wisconsin–Madison
requested a synthesis of current practices in the use of Global Positioning System technologies in
highway construction, with a focus on contemporary uses of GPS in surveying and staking of
projects and the use of GPS for control of grading and paving equipment.
Engst, A. C. (2009), GPS Accuracy Could Start Dropping in 2010, TidBITS.

Reports the inaccuracies that occur in the GPS technology from year to year along with issues of
upgrading for the US Air Force.
Euler, H.-J. and J. Wirth (2008), Advanced Concept in Multiple GNSS Network RTK Processing, paper
presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance 2008, 2008.
In the GNSS positioning community permanent reference stations applications, often called
Network RTK, have been established. Even so this may still be considered as an emerging
technology for some countries, there are already a lot of installations readily available and are
offering their services to a broad community. However the efficient use of these services with
GNSS receivers supporting multiple satellite systems is still quite limited. Obviously, a pure GPS
reference station network can provide only the GPS portion of the required reference station
information for positioning. Half of the available rover observation information cannot be
B-3

utilized. Network RTK installations supporting multiple GNSS on all reference stations need
significant investment on the service provider side for exchanging all receivers. Only new
networks are more likely to be equipped completely with reference station receivers supporting
all the same GNSS; at the time being GPS and GLONASS. For the future Galileo is on the
horizon and again the service providers have to adapt their services. It is not very likely that a
large portion of the services will be homogenously equipped with reference station receivers
supporting the same GNSS. Summarizing the scenarios for users having invested in multiple-
GNSS receiver equipment, one has to acknowledge, that either the user has to establish his own
reference station for his work or the user can use only part of the capabilities of his new,
expensive equipment. New concepts for processing multiple receiver observation information are
desperately required. The paper is analysing the options for optimal use of a multi-GNSS receiver
together with other GNSS receivers not supporting the complete set of GNSS. Furthermore the
paper details on the processing of observation information from a receiver supporting two-GNSS
together with single GNSS reference station receivers in a network application. The concept is
specifically adapted for any combination of GNSS receivers. The only restriction is that a GNSS
needs to be supported by at least two receivers in the network. Computational results are
presented in various combinations for several single-GNSS receivers with multiple-GNSS
receivers. The advantages of these combinations are high-lighted. The conclusion is that not
necessarily all reference stations have to be equipped with receivers supporting all required
GNSS for efficient use of the multiple-GNSS roving receivers. In the extreme a GPS-GLONASS
or GPS-Galileo receiver can be used efficiently together with two reference stations supplying
either of the GNSS independently. The study has been conducted as part of the Galileo project on
Professional Receiver Development ARTUS.
Fields, T. (2003), The Networking Nucleus - Feature Articles - Point of Beginning, The Point of
Beginning.
Gary Pruitt and C. E. Fly (2008), NDGPS Assessment Final ReportRep., 194 pp, US Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
The specific objective of this report is to present the results of an assessment of the Nationwide
Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS) system.
Grenzdörffer, G. and C. Donath (2008), Generation and Analysis of Digital Terrain Models with Parallel
Guidance Systems for Precision Agriculture, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine
Control & Guidance 2008, 2008.
In Europe more than 10.000 dual frequency iTC Starfire GPS-receivers were sold in recent years.
These GPS-receivers are mainly used for parallel tracking and autosteering of modern tractors
and combine harvesters. The recorded GPS-data also includes precise height information which
can be used for the generation of high accuracy digital terrain models at no or little additional
cost. In the paper the achievable data accuracy under different conditions are investigated. The
different steps for data preparation and digital terrain models DTM generation are described.
Additionally several applications of high accuracy DTM’s in (precision) agriculture are
highlighted.
Grimm, D. E. (2008), GNSS Orientation for kinematic applications, paper presented at 1st International
Conference on Machine Control & Guidance 2008, 2008.
GNSS systems are a well established technique for guiding machines or the machine’s operator
along predefined routes. Such GNSS applications have been successfully integrated into the
design of construction machines and farming equipment. While a GNSS-equipped machine
B-4

moves straight ahead conventional GNSS systems with only one antenna show good
performance. However, the system reaches its limits when the machine turns on its own axis,
such as an excavator does. This causes the GNSS receiver to be unable to determine its bearing,
as a compass could do. A common single-antenna GNSS receiver can only estimate its moving
direction (heading) using previous positions. Since a turn around its own axis does not change the
coordinates, but changes the orientation of the machine, the orientation can not be calculated by
this means. A common solution to this problem is the implementation of two GNSS antennas.
Two antennas allow the bearing of the baseline between the antennas to be defined. A new
approach with only one antenna required is under development at the ETH Zurich. This new
system uses the satellite positions as a reference for orientation. For that purpose the direction of
each satellite’s signal has to be known in relation to the antenna. In order to obtain orientation the
signal strength of each satellite is measured. A well defined shading of the received signals allows
estimating the required orientation. After full implementation of our approach, the second GNSS
antenna found on most construction machines will not be required anymore.
Hannon, J. J. and D. Townes (2007), GPS Utilization Challenges in Transportation Construction Project
Delivery, paper presented at The construction and building research conference of the Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Georgia Tech, Atlanta USA,
2007/09/06/7.
Transportation agency surveying functions have a well documented record over the last 10 years
of embracing Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to enhance their planning and design
requirements. A second evolution is in process as pertains to GPS. Agencies are engaged in GPS
research, developing guidance specifications, and some have incorporated new standard
specifications. Due to relatively recent advancements in technology, construction contractors are
requesting 3D digital surveying datasets produced by agency surveyors for use in delivery of
construction projects. Among other advantages, these digital models allow for contractor
machine-controlled grading operations which increase accuracy and decrease equipment and
labor resources for both agency (owner) and contractor. Based upon literature review, a survey of
transportation agency adoption and personal work experience with agencies and contractors, this
paper discusses the benefits of GPS in the delivery of transportation construction projects, the
new mindset and procedure required for application, and how this technology relates to standard
agency construction specifications. The information should be valuable to all contractual
stakeholders involved in, or contemplating involvement with, utilizing the advantages of GPS in
transportation construction project delivery.
Hntb (2004), Survey-Grade GPS Reference Station Technology for the Missouri DOTRep., 98 pp, HNTB
Corporation.
As part of an existing contract over with Missouri DOT (MoDOT), HNTB Corporation conducted
a research effort of current technologies and industry practices to review the feasibility of
establishing survey-grade real-time GPS reference station technology as an extension of ongoing
ITS work currently under development for MoDOT. As part of the review, HNTB conducted
numerous interviews with other state Departments of Transportation that are using this type of
technology within their agencies. The project specifies a pilot reference station be established
within the I-70/I-64 corridors integrated with other planned ITS elements. It is hoped that this
reference station may serve as a model for establishing a regional or state-side GPS infrastructure
available for sophisticated uses of GPS within and around the State of Missouri. Many benefits,
public and private, can be found in establishing this permanent reference station technology
infrastructure. Ubiquitous availability of real-time, survey grade GPS in the field can lower
spatial data collection costs through reduced crew sizes and increased productivity while
providing increased reliability in precision and accuracy of field measurements for many uses,
B-5

including survey with low error levels (<1 cm). In many cases, the return-on-investment on the
expenditure of establishment of a GPS reference station architecture can be realized in a short
period of time. Two presentations took place to share with MoDOT the findings of the technical
review. The first presentation took place in MoDOT’s District 6 offices in the St. Louis area on
October 23, 2003. The second presentation was conducted at MoDOT’s District 4 offices in
Kansas City on December 12, 2003. A CD-ROM was provided to meeting participants as a
follow-up which contained some reference materials along with the presentation. This document
summarizes the findings of the technology review and mirrors the material presented in those
presentations.
Inglis, R. (2006), Evaluation of VRS-RTK GPS Latency in a Dynamic Environment, 70 pp, University of
Southern Queensland.
This research project investigates the effects of latency in dynamic GPS (Global Positioning
System) measurements made within a Virtual Reference Station (VRS) – Real Time Kinematic
(RTK) network. The test method, which has been devised as an integral part of this research,
allows for determination of the effects of latency in low speed dynamic VRS measurements. The
method utilises a utility vehicle as a dynamic platform for testing, with a barcode reader attached
to the vehicle to read barcodes which have been fixed to posts adjacent to the test path. Mounted
in vertical alignment with the reader is the GPS antenna, providing the GPS signals to allow the
GPS receiver(s) on board to determine the position of the vehicle as it passes the fixed barcodes
and thereby providing a fixed frame of reference for the measurement of latency. Measuring lines
in each direction and comparing the apparent position of the barcodes allows for the
determination of latency. Conducting the testing procedure over a range of speeds will also
facilitate the investigation of the relationship between platform speed and latency error. The
results of this research have implications for any machine guidance and precision agriculture
applications intending to use the VRS network where data accuracy is a major consideration. If
the latency present in the positioning system has been quantified, it becomes possible to correct
for this position error in real time. The research has only considered the effects of latency on the
position solution, and this should be distinguished from accuracy. The accuracy of the VRS
system in dynamic applications has not been investigated as part of this research project, but
should also be considered in conjunction with latency when investigating the suitability of VRS
to potential applications, dynamic or static.
Kerville, P. (2008), China's Entry onto the GNSS Scene, in Kerville's MovingDirt Magazine, edited.
American GPS positioning technology has always been offered on the basis of ‘no guarantees’.
Until Bill Clinton ordered otherwise, its signals were deliberately distorted, and users were aware
that for whatever reason— military necessity, perhaps—the system could be shut down for
however long it suited its military masters. The same could conceivably be true of the Chinese
Beidou system, for similar reasons, always assuming that the Chinese achieve technical mastery
of what’s a complex and demanding science. For these reasons it’s to be hoped that Galileo
moves forward, providing in the fullness of time a fourth leg to the stool of choice, and a huge
combined constellation from which all will benefit.
Kirshner, H. and W. stempfhuber (2008), The Kinematic Potential of Modern Tracking Total Stations - A
State of the Art Report on the Leica TPS1200+, paper presented at 1st International Conference on
Machine Control & Guidance 2008, 2008.
Kinematic measuring systems allow for new areas of use in geodetic metrology. According to the
task requirements, geodetic measuring sensors are used for the most varied applications. Target
B-6

tracking tachymeters (total stations) are still used for precise real-time 3D trajectories. Nowadays,
modern instruments allow movements of a few millimetres to be measured.
Maunder, D. (2007), An Investigation into the Establishment of a Continuously Operating GPS Reference
Station at Dubbo City Council, Central West Nsw, Dissertation thesis, 1-75 pp, University of Southern
Queensland.
Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), real time differential correction techniques,
Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) networks, mobile internet and GNSS user
equipment are now mature technologies. The challenge is to manage the combination of these
technologies to fully benefit users and society. The aim of this project was the investigation into
the feasibility of establishment of a CORS site, servicing the requirements of Dubbo City
Council, and surrounding geographical area,where this functionality does not currently exist. For
a State (and National) CORS network coverage that will provide at least Real Timepositional
applications, then these sites must be located relative to regional population centers, and that an
optimal location, particularly for NSW, is the Local Government Organisation in that regional
centre. This project will focus on the validation of establishing such a model, particularly for
current users of spatial technology, and as such the Council of the City of Dubbo will be both a
case study for a similar exercise into other regions of the State of NSW, and perhaps nationally.
Dubbo City Council will also be the sponsor of the project, and as such, a questionnaire will be
used to validate the process. Typical users and generators of spatial technology in the area, and
including representatives of other Local Government organisations, State based Road and Traffic
authorities, Agriculture and Precision farming, and consulting surveyors, shall be invited to
participate in a questionnaire to gauge the level of interest and potential commitment to the
establishment of enhanced GNSS functionality for this particular location. The questionnaire of
local spatial industry representatives was compared to other industry professional literature and
similar academic exercises. Pertinent aspects of the questionnaire were highlighted and the salient
points contributed to the preparation of a validating business case for the proposed model.
Reilly, J. P. (2005), Standards and specifications for surveying using Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS,
in Point of Beginning, edited, p. 36+.
Reynolds, J. (2006), Accuracy Assessment of VRS in a Dynamic Environment, Dissertation thesis,

University of Southern Queensland.
The Virtual Reference Station (VRS) concept is one method that is being employed around the
world to overcome some of the limitations with conventional Real Time Kinematic (RTK)
positioning. There has been an increasing amount of research into the accuracy of VRS RTK GPS
measurements, and the Department of Natural Resources and Water has identified the need to
investigate the use of VRS in a dynamic environment. This project has compared the accuracy,
precision and latency of conventional RTK and VRS RTK GPS measurements taken in a dynamic
environment. This gives an insight into the suitability of the VRS RTK GPS system to real time
dynamic applications. The testing regime used for this project involved attaching RTK GPS
equipment to a trolley and positioning reference marks (a series of stakes with barcodes attached)
adjacent to a pathway. As the trolley passes these reference marks, a barcode reader on the trolley
will scan the barcodes and will initiate a GPS measurement for both conventional RTK and VRS
RTK methods. These measurements are compared to the true locations of the reference marks to
determine the accuracy, precision and latency. The results show that the VRS RTK method may
be suitable for real time dynamic applications such as machine guidance. However this testing
has resembled only slow speed dynamic applications in the range of 1-5 km/h. Further testing
would be required for faster speeds.
B-7

Roberts, G. W. and A. H. Dodson (2002), Construction Plant Control Using RTK GPS, 2002/04/19/26.
The use of GPS for construction plant control and guidance is a hot topic in the world of
geomatics. Research has been underway for many years into this area, mainly based on using
such RTK GPS systems on bulldozers. GPS allows real time centimetre positioning that allows
the bulldozer’s driver to operate the machinery in a semi-autonomous manner. Research has been
underway at the University of Nottingham for a number of years, investigating the use of GPS for
such an application. The research focuses on using RTK GPS for both bulldozer and excavator
control. The following paper details the work conducted at Nottingham, using a Trimble
SiteVision system. The work conducted focuses on both controlled trials as well as field trials. An
extensive series of real life trials have been conducted, whereby a bulldozer, using the system,
was used to re-shape a 100m x 50m piece of ground. The work involved, as well as the results are
detailed in the paper.
Sadler, D. Automated Machine Guidance GPS and Machine Controls that can Assist in Construction
Accuracies and Efficiences, in 2009 FDOT/FTBA Construction Conference, edited.
Sanderson, L. The Use of GPS in the Department of Transportaion, edited.
Schwieger, V. and J. Hemmert (2008), Integration of a Multiple-Antenna GNSS System and

Supplementary Sensors, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance
2008, 2008.
A typical problem of GNSS-based positioning systems, especially for kinematic applications, is
the occurrence of outliers, periods of systematic erroneous data as well as the complete loss of
GNSS signals. To overcome these problems GNSS systems are supplemented by additional
sensors such as inertial measurement systems or, more simple, among others gyroscopes and
odometers. In this paper two multi-sensor systems are investigated. A high-precise system was
provided by Allsat company consisting of a multiple antenna Javad GNSS system providing
phase data and an inertial measurement unit as well as filter algorithm not known to the authors,
therefore, treated as a black-box model. The other system is known as MOPSY (Modular
Positioning System) and is provided by the Institute for Applications of Geodesy to Engineering
(IAGB). In general its components are low-cost products. For these investigation a low-cost GPS
receiver was supplemented by the following set-up: a gyroscope, two odometers, and an optical
speed and distance sensor. Additionally MOPSY comprises a Kalman filter based on the
assumption of an uniform circle drive. In this paper two topics are presented: the comparison of
the two systems and the integration of the high-precise data into the filter algorithm of MOPSY.
The GNSS positions of the high-precise system was used to evaluate the low-cost system.
Already at this stage of the investigations the performance of the MOPSY filter was obvious. It
performs more reliably than the black-box model. Integration of the high-precise data into the
MOPSY filter leads to encouraging results presented in this paper.
Semones, P. (2004), Using State Plane and Project Datum Coordinates, Rep., Kentucky.
A basic approach for relating state plane coordinates and project datum coordinates for projects in
Kentucky
Soler, T. s. (2008), 2008 GPS/GNSS Bibliography, GPS Solut., 6.

This bibliography is a compilation of peer-reviewed articles published in 2008 describing original
research with citations that may be of interest to other investigators working in any of the
B-8

GPS/GNSS fields. Titles of new books and conference proceedings that include a significant
number of chapters and/or articles dealing with GPS/GNSS are also listed in italics in this
bibliography. Articles, primarily appearing in trade journals, containing interspersed
advertisements are only identified by their first page number followed by the symbol +.
Contributions with more than five authors will be referenced under the first author name and the
extension et al.
Stansell, T. (2006), Dual-Use GPS. T. Stansell, edited.

The precedent for dual-use was established in ~1967 during the Johnson administration when the
Navy Navigation Satellite System (Transit), which up to then had been classified Secret, was
released for worldwide civil use. I helped prepare the system specifications which were made
available after the announcement by Vice President Hubert Humphrey
Trails, H. (2007), Re: Ultimate accuracy of commercial GPS equipment?, edited by B. Hyman, p. 4,
http://sci.tech−archive.net/Archive/sci.geo.satellite−nav/2007−04/msg00169.html.
California DOT. ( 2012), Global Positioning System (GPS) Survey Specifications, California Department
of Transportation, 42 pp., California Department of Transportation.
Survey specifications describe the methods and procedures needed to attain a desired survey
accuracy standard. The specifications for Post Processed GPS Surveys described in Section 6A
are based on Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee (FGCS) standards. The FGCS standards
and specifications have been modified to meet the specific needs and requirements for various
types of first-order, second-order, third-order, and general-order GPS surveys typically performed
by Caltrans. The specifications for Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS Surveys described in
Section 6B are based on accepted California Department of Transportation standards. The
specifications in Section 6A are separate and distinct from the specifications in Section 6B. For
complete details regarding accuracy standards, refer to Chapter 5, “Classifications and Accuracy
Standards.”
Caltrans GPS1 survey specifications are to be used for all Caltrans-involved
transportation improvement projects, including special-funded projects.
GPS surveying is an evolving technology. As GPS hardware and processing software are
improved, new specifications will be developed and existing specifications will be changed. The
specifications described in this section are not intended to discourage the development of new
GPS procedures and techniques. survey specifications are to be used for all Caltrans-involved
transportation improvement projects, including special-funded projects.
Wyoming DOT. (2006), Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS Specification, 11 pp.
RTK GPS survey equipment and procedures will only yield a certain level of accuracy. Care shall
be taken to understand the accuracy of the equipment and the procedures utilized, to insure that
the necessary survey tolerances are met. During the preliminary survey meeting it should be
discussed and agreed upon as to what information can be obtained using RTK GPS equipment,
and what should be obtained using other surveying techniques and/or equipment.
RTK GPS surveying is an evolving technology. In the future, these specifications may need to be
changed or removed, and new specifications may need to be developed. Not all specifications
may apply equally or be appropriate for different models of RTK GPS equipment. If it is
questionable whether a particular model of RTK GPS equipment will meet these specifications,
its use shall be discussed and agreed upon at the preliminary survey meeting or before it is used
on a project. Where these specifications are vague or silent on a subject, refer to the
manufacturer's recommendations for use of a specific model of RTK GPS equipment. New
B-9

procedures not covered or not conforming to these specifications will not be used without prior
approval of the Photogrammetry & Surveys Engineer.
Stationary Laser Scanning
Coşarcă, C., C. Didulescu, A. Savu, A. Sărăcin, G. Badea, A. C. Badea and A. Negrilă (2013),
Mathematical Models Used In Processing Measurements Made By Terrestrial Laser Scanning
Technology*, Preoceedings of the Applied Mathematics and Computational Methods in Engineering,
184-188.
Processing of measurements obtained from terrestrial laser scanning is difficult in view of the
multitude of points determined. It involves several stages: registration, point cloud processing,
post-processing, 2D and 3D modeling and obtaining
final products. The processing software performs registration and georeference of point clouds
automatically, without user intervention. To have control over the transformation of coordinates
and at stochastic mathematical models that processing software uses, there are several different
coordinates transformation models from the instrument system to an external chosen system.
Hiremagalur, J., K. S. Kin, T. A. Lasky and B. Ravani (2008), Testing and Performance Evaluation of
Fixed Terrestrial 3D Laser Scanning Systems for Highway Applications, in TRB 2009 Annual Meeting,
edited, TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM, Washington D.C.
In many 3D laser scanner applications, high relative precision (relative dimensions within the
registered point cloud) is sufficient; in contrast, DOT applications require good relative precision
and high absolute accuracy. Thus, precise and robust geo-referencing is critical, and robust
workflows are needed to reduce the likelihood and impact of human errors. DOT applications
have a fairly unique combination of challenges, including longer range requirements, long linear
geometry for complete jobs, tall structures, and dark pavement scanned at high incidence angle.
These factors motivate standardized protocols and metrics for characterizing and evaluating
scanner performance and to develop confidence limits for the scanner data in DOT applications.
The paper’s primary contribution is a set of vendor-neutral standard test protocols for the
characterization and evaluation of 3D laser scanner performance, which users can conduct in
easily accessible facilities. These evaluations focused on issues significant in DOT survey
applications, workflows, and data flows. Example performance evaluation is provided for several
commercially available 3D laser scanners. This paper provides the needed scientific basis for
data-driven deployment of this valuable measurement tool. The paper also provides
recommendations and guidelines which will promote consistent and correct use of 3D laser
scanners by DOTs and their contractors. The guidelines clarify the common limitations of 3D
laser scanners and recommend mitigation methods; this will help engineers and surveyors to
select the right scanner and determine optimum scanning settings for survey applications.
Mobile Laser Scanning
Depenthal, C. (2008), A Time-referenced 4D Calibration System for Kinematic Optical Measuring

Systems, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance 2008, 2008.
By using kinematic optical measuring systems in spatiotemporal positioning necessarily all
involved sensors of the measuring systems have to be synchronized. Otherwise existing dead time
and latency in a measuring system will lead to deviations in the space-time position. A time-
referenced 4D calibration system is presented for kinematic optical measuring systems, which is
qualified for tracking optical measuring systems of any kind. The base of this calibration system
B-10

is built up by a tiltable rotating arm driven by a rotary direct drive. The rotating arm is
supplemented by a further rotary direct drive mounted on a movable tripod. The developed
modeling for determinability of a space-time position is based on the theory of quaternions. The
fundamental idea of modeling is equivalent to the fact that every measurand of the test item,
which is measured at a particular time, could be assigned to an explicit position of the rotating
arm.
Gräfe, G. (2008), Kinematic 3D Laser Scanning for Road or Railway Construction Surveys, paper
presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance 2008.
Kinematic laser-scanning has been a key application for the Mobile Road Mapping System
(MoSES) since a couple of years. The development of kinematic survey methods has reached a
level, that allows the use of kinematic survey technology for high precision applications.
Replacing static tachymetric surveys on the road itself, kinematic methods are more and more
applied for construction projects. The technology is used for rapid airfield monitoring as well as
an increasing number of highway construction projects or high-precision railway tunnel surveys.
The resulting data is acquired and generated with static survey accuracy, but much faster and with
much higher resolution - if needed. The results represent the basic survey information for
planning tasks or high precision machine guidance. Within the last months, the next development
steps have been taken with the aim to join static and kinematic scanner technology. High
precision static 3D laser scanners, which are capable of performing profiling measurement
modes, can now be used with the MoSES system. A special mounting and rapid-calibration
procedure is required to enable the use of e.g. Zoller&Fröhlich or FARO 3D laser scanners for
kinematic high precision applications. Pilot projects to demonstrate the capabilities of this new
3D laser scanner survey method have been high-speed surveys of automobile industry test sites or
subway tunnel surveys. The new developments were completed by adding infrared
photogrammetric camera technology to the MOSES system, which enables full night vision
survey capacity, which is of high interest for tunnel or airfield monitoring applications.
Juretzko, M. and M. Hennes (2008), Monitoring of the spatiotemporal movement of an industrial robot
using a laser tracker, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance
2008, 2008.
The project introduced here describes the geometric inspection of an innovative robot-based
production process for spatially curved extruded profiles. The aim was to prove that the
trajectories fulfil a given spatiotemporal tolerance level with respect to repeatability and absolute
accuracy using an independent, i.e. geodetic, measurement method. In order to inspect this
motion regarding spatiotemporal tolerance, it is necessary to synchronize a laser tracker with the
control system of the robot with an order of magnitude of micro seconds. This resolution has been
achieved by triggered measurements with a Leica LTD500. Very specific and for the production
process decisive deviations of the robot trajectory have been detected as well as an extraordinarily
high kinematic repeatability of the robot.
Kirshner, H. and W. stempfhuber (2008), The Kinematic Potential of Modern Tracking Total Stations - A
State of the Art Report on the Leica TPS1200+, paper presented at 1st International Conference on
Machine Control & Guidance 2008.
Kinematic measuring systems allow for new areas of use in geodetic metrology. According to the
task requirements, geodetic measuring sensors are used for the most varied applications. Target
tracking tachymeters (total stations) are still used for precise real-time 3D trajectories. Nowadays,
modern instruments allow movements of a few millimetres to be measured.
B-11

Mettenleiter, M., N. Obertreiber, F. Härtl, M. Ehm, J. Baur and C. Fröhlich (2008), 3D Laser Scanner as
Part of Kinematic Measurement Systems, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine
Control and Guidance 2008.
The areas of applications for kinematic measurement systems were growing continuously in the
last few years. The conventional objectives are e.g. the surveying of infrastructure buildings,
railway tracks or tunnel measurement. New applications are the measurement of accident scenes
or the generation of 3D city models. The intention is a fast and integral multi sensor system for
the 3D survey of large objects to whole cities. This paper reports multi sensor systems which
contain 3D laser scanner and positioning sensors and the technique how to combine them. The
synchronisation of all sensors is an essential issue which affects the accuracy of the whole
system. The paper also presents different applications regarding systems for railway survey which
are already in use in a very profitable way and systems in the phase of development.
Zogg, H.-M. and D. Grimm (2008), Kinematic Surface Analysis by Terrestrial Laser Scanning, paper
This paper presents terrestrial laser scanning with emphasis on kinematic surface analysis.
Besides an overview of terrestrial laser scanning in general, the 2D-laser scanner SICK LMS200-
30106 is introduced as well as investigations on its distance measurement qualities. This 2D-laser
scanner is often used for kinematic applications in the field of engineering geodesy due to its high
scanning frequency, robustness, and reliability. The kinematic surface analysis at Hamburg
Airport in conjunction with load tests is presented as an application for the 2D-laser scanner. In
general, an application of terrestrial laser scanning into the field of machine control and guidance
is conceivable.
Infra-Red Sensing
Hannon, J. J. (2007), NCHRP Synthesis 372 Emerging Technologies for Construction Delivery, Rep.
978-0-309-09791-8, Transportation Research Board.
This synthesis presents information on the use of five emerging technologies for transportation
construction projects: global positioning systems for layout, machine guidance, and quantity
tracking; handheld computers for construction records; automated temperature tracking for
concrete maturity monitoring; four-dimensional computer-aided drafting modeling for
constructability analysis and improved communications; and web-based video cameras for remote
project monitoring. The synthesis reports on the current state of each of the five technologies and
their potential benefits for transportation agencies in the delivery of construction projects. The
following characteristics are provided for each of the technologies: description, benefits, extent of
use, barriers to use, instances of successful implementation and procedures, unresolved issues,
and unintended consequences. It also discusses the current level of use and documents lessons
learned from agencies with experience in implementing the targeted technologies. Other
technologies discussed include virtual reality, building information models, and radio frequency
identification. The information will form a foundation from which state and provincial highway
agencies can begin the process of performing benefit–cost analysis as a first step to adopting
those technologies that seem the most promising. A survey questionnaire was distributed to U.S.
departments of transportation through a web-based survey application, and was also sent to select
Canadian transportation agencies. Responses were received from agencies across the North
American continent. In addition, a literature search was conducted of academic, governmental,
industrial, and commercial resources to provide a solid theoretical and anecdotal basis for the
review of each technology. John Hannon, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg,
collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel
B-12

are acknowledged on the preceding page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that
records the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the
time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be
added to that now at hand.
Others
Professional Surveyor Discussion Forums, edited, Professional Surveyor, Professional Surveyor.

Published by Flatdog Media, Professional Surveyor covers land, aerial, and hydrographic
surveying for professionals in the surveying, mapping, engineering, GIS, and geomatics fields.
(2008), Insite: The Construction newsletter from KOREC, edited, KOREC.

Over 250 visitors to KOREC’s first ever Trimble Construction LIVE event
(2008), "Rocky Mountain Lasers." Retrieved 10/29, 2013, from

Administration, U. D. o. T. F. H. (2008), Priority, Market-Ready Technologies And Innovations.

Additionally Selected Technologies. , edited, p. 2, US Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration.
State DOTs need faster and safer methods of gathering survey information for design and other
applications. High-definition 3D surveying provides a cost-effective solution to gathering survey
data. The use of HD 3D surveying technology in the planning stages of a project facilitates
communication among surveyors, designers, project managers and senior management. Through
the production of 3D visual, dimensionally accurate models, stakeholders gain an understanding
of the site. Either point cloud or intelligent pixel methods will give team members an enhanced
picture of a project’s complexity.
Anspach, J. H. (2010), Utility location and highway design.
Ciccarone, R. (2009), TRB Regenerating Digital Terrain Data for use wuth Contractor's Equipment, in
TRB's annual meeting, edited, Washington DC.
Clarke-Hackston, N., J. Belz and A. Henneker (2008), Guidance for Partial Face Excavation Machines,
paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance 2008, 2008.
For the construction of tunnels and other underground structures, extraction of the exact amount
of material is of paramount importance both economically and for engineering purposes. In the
Sequential Support Method (NATM) immediate (sequential) and smooth support by means of
shotcrete, steel arches, lattice girders and rockbolts, either singly or in combination are used;
cutting of the precise profile (albeit sometimes of complex geometry) is an integral part of the
method. In order to save unnecessary excavation and provide better information to the machine
operator, VMT GmbH has developed a system to support precise excavation of the tunnel profile
when using roadheaders or other partial face cutting machines. This paper outlines the principles
of this system with examples from Australia, Germany, Sweden and Spain and will cite examples
of typical savings achieved.
B-13

Inter-drain, g. l. Compare GPS Products, edited, p. GPS machine control products v.s. competitors, Great
Lakes Inter-Drain.
Jenkins, P. (2005), GPS/RTK Accuracy and Procedure Report Concerning Ground Control for Aerial
Photography, Rep., Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Land Management
Photogrammetric Unit.
This report has two purposes, the first is to be reactive to this recent error problem and address
those concerns. Secondly, to be proactive in dealing with the current work environment by
demonstrating the value in doing the job tasks correctly and thoroughly. This will be done by
clearly stating expectations regarding field and office procedures when using Real Time
Kinematic (RTK), Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment for ground control for aerial
photography. In addition, other aspects relating to ground control such as the aerial planning
process, targeting procedures and accuracy standards will also be reviewed.
Streett, D. (2006), SURVEY CHANGES IN CONSTRUCTION, edited, NYS Department of

Transportation, AGC/DOT Technical Conference
New methods in surveying such as Features Have Their Own Horizontal & Vertical Alignments.
Points Along Features are Precisely Calculated From Merged Horizontal & Vertical Alignments.
Location of any Point Can be Determined Instantly and Positioned in the Field. Roadway
Surfaces Graded by Machine Navigation –Less Reliance on Operator Experience. Stakeout Relies
on Curved Feature Alignments, Not on Chorded Segments. Intersections/Roundabouts Are
Staked Out Precisely from Combined Alignments –Independent of Centerline.
MDOT. (2007), Surveying and Mapping Manual, 395 pp.

This manual incorporates and sets forth accepted practices developed in the Surveying Program
and the Interactive Graphics/Automated Drafting System. The manual will be kept current
through a continuing program to keep Surveying and Mapping personnel up-to-date on the
changes coming about because of research, new technology and the surveying organization of
Mn/DOT, while continuing to emphasize sound survey practices.
Low Distortion Coordinate System
Burkholder, E. F. (2012), Contrasting a Low Distortion Projection (LDP) With the Global Spatial Data
Model (GSDM), Global COGO, Inc.,, 9.
Portraying Earth’s curved surface on a flat map while preserving geometrical integrity has
challenged cartographers for many years. Numerous map projections have been developed to
address specific problems and, for the most part, the utility of those projections remains valid for
the purposes intended. However, the digital revolution and wide-spread use of 3-D digital
geospatial data, both locally and on a world-wide scale, provide motivation for re-visiting the
challenge of “flattening the Earth.” The traditional approach for surveying, mapping, and
engineering applications has been to design a conformal map projection that preserves angular
relationships between lines on the map and corresponding lines on the Earth. It is well known that
a conformal projection distorts distances on the curved Earth as they are projected to the flat map.
Long distances are typically distorted more than short distances. A low distortion projection
(LDP) minimizes the distance distortion by restricting the area covered by a given projection and
by using an algorithm that provides 2-D rectangular near-ground-level coordinates for each point.
The distinct advantage of a LDP is that the computed distance between a pair of points closely
matches the actual horizontal ground-level distance between the same two points. On the other
B-14

hand, the global spatial data model (GSDM) is based upon the 3-D geocentric Earth-centered
Earth-fixed (ECEF) coordinates of each point and provides a true “user view” of the world
without distorting either directions or distances. When using the GSDM, the origin (standpoint) is
selected by the user and the forepoint can be any other ECEF point in a 3-D data base or point
cloud. The local ground-level distance and the true azimuth from standpoint to forepoint are
computed from the plane surveying components (Δn & Δe) obtained from the ECEF coordinate
differences between the stand point and the forepoint. This paper describes the objectives of each
model and contrasts the two models while highlighting the advantages of the GSDM over a LDP.
Examples are accessible via web links given in the paper.
Dennis, M. L. Low Distortion Projections for Surveying and GIS, edited, Geodetic Analysis, LLC,
Oregon Department of Transportation.
Dry, R. and B. Fisher City of Surprise Coordinate System Coordinate System a Low Distortion
Projection, edited.
Patocka, R. R. (2012), Use of Low Distortion Projections.

As demands for precise measurement of land and natural resources increase, today’s data users
must sharpen their focus on 1) understanding historical measurements, 2) embracing emerging
measurement and mapping technology, and 3) planning our collective future.
One goal of this paper is an attempt to affirm and clarify the utility and value of statewide
coverage by LDP’s. A goal of 20 ppm maximum distortion for each LDP zone in Iowa has been
set, and another goal is to keep the number of zones to a minimum while not crossing county
lines.
Consequently, this paper highlights the roots of surveying measurement techniques and
the convergence of GIS and Engineering / Surveying Data. Establishing LDP’s is a step in
promoting better coordination and use of spatial databases among the disparate GIS user
communities. Ultimately the goal is to improve decision-making.
The Iowa DOT, with support of the Society of Land Surveyors of Iowa (SLSI), the Iowa County
Engineers Association (ICEA) and other organizations have started to develop a RFP for
prequalified geodetic survey consultants to design LDP zones in Iowa. Mr. Norman Miller, IDOT
Preliminary Survey Manager, chairs the RFP and consultant selection team. Hopefully, the
successful consultant will design LDP’s statewide for Iowa within a year.
Patocka, R. R. (2013), Low Distortion Projections, with GIS’t a Little Bit of Geometrical and Physical
Geodesy, edited.
One goal of this presentation is an attempt to affirm and clarify the utility and value of statewide
coverage by LDP’s.
Another goal is to assist non-Geodesists in their quest to better understand geodetic coordinate
systems and their use in GIS.
This presentation highlights the roots of surveying and geodetic measurement techniques and the
convergence of GIS, Geodetic and Engineering / Surveying Data.
Establishing LDP’s is a step in promoting better coordination and use of spatial databases among
the disparate GIS user communities.
Iowa DOT. (undated). Statewide Low Distortion Projection Design: Request For Proposal, 6 pp., Iowa
Department of Transportation.
The Iowa Department of Transportation’s Office of Design is interested in Geodetic Consulting
services to provide Low Distortion Projection (LDP) Design and documentation for the entire
B-15

state of Iowa. If your firm is interested in providing the described services, please submit a
proposal stating your ability and availability to complete this work.
Geodetic/Map Projection
Bolstad, P. (2012), Geodesy, Datums, Map Projections, and Coordinate System, in GIS Fundamentals,
edited, p. 60, Eider Press.
Burkholder, E. F. (2012), Contrasting a Low Distortion Projection (LDP) With the Global Spatial Data
Model (GSDM), Global COGO, Inc.,, 9.
Portraying Earth’s curved surface on a flat map while preserving geometrical integrity has
challenged cartographers for many years. Numerous map projections have been developed to
address specific problems and, for the most part, the utility of those projections remains valid for
the purposes intended. However, the digital revolution and wide-spread use of 3-D digital
geospatial data, both locally and on a world-wide scale, provide motivation for re-visiting the
challenge of “flattening the Earth.” The traditional approach for surveying, mapping, and
engineering applications has been to design a conformal map projection that preserves angular
relationships between lines on the map and corresponding lines on the Earth. It is well known that
a conformal projection distorts distances on the curved Earth as they are projected to the flat map.
Long distances are typically distorted more than short distances. A low distortion projection
(LDP) minimizes the distance distortion by restricting the area covered by a given projection and
by using an algorithm that provides 2-D rectangular near-ground-level coordinates for each point.
The distinct advantage of a LDP is that the computed distance between a pair of points closely
matches the actual horizontal ground-level distance between the same two points. On the other
hand, the global spatial data model (GSDM) is based upon the 3-D geocentric Earth-centered
Earth-fixed (ECEF) coordinates of each point and provides a true “user view” of the world
without distorting either directions or distances. When using the GSDM, the origin (standpoint) is
selected by the user and the forepoint can be any other ECEF point in a 3-D data base or point
cloud. The local ground-level distance and the true azimuth from standpoint to forepoint are
computed from the plane surveying components (Δn & Δe) obtained from the ECEF coordinate
differences between the stand point and the forepoint. This paper describes the objectives of each
model and contrasts the two models while highlighting the advantages of the GSDM over a LDP.
Examples are accessible via web links given in the paper.
Eriksson, H. Geodetic reference systems and Map projections, edited, Lund University.
García, A. M. (2011), Creation of 3D model of the Tihany peninsula, Eötvös Loránd University Budapest.
Patocka, R. R. (2012), Use of Low Distortion Projections.

As demands for precise measurement of land and natural resources increase, today’s data users
must sharpen their focus on 1) understanding historical measurements, 2) embracing emerging
measurement and mapping technology, and 3) planning our collective future.
One goal of this paper is an attempt to affirm and clarify the utility and value of statewide
coverage by LDP’s. A goal of 20 ppm maximum distortion for each LDP zone in Iowa has been
set, and another goal is to keep the number of zones to a minimum while not crossing county
lines.
Consequently, this paper highlights the roots of surveying measurement techniques and
the convergence of GIS and Engineering / Surveying Data. Establishing LDP’s is a step in
B-16

promoting better coordination and use of spatial databases among the disparate GIS user
communities. Ultimately the goal is to improve decision-making.
The Iowa DOT, with support of the Society of Land Surveyors of Iowa (SLSI), the Iowa
County Engineers Association (ICEA) and other organizations have started to develop a RFP for
prequalified geodetic survey consultants to design LDP zones in Iowa. Mr. Norman Miller, IDOT
Preliminary Survey Manager, chairs the RFP and consultant selection team. Hopefully, the
successful consultant will design LDP’s statewide for Iowa within a year.
Patocka, R. R. (2013), Low Distortion Projections, with GIS’t a Little Bit of Geometrical and Physical
Geodesy, edited.
One goal of this presentation is an attempt to affirm and clarify the utility and value of statewide
coverage by LDP’s.
Another goal is to assist non-Geodesists in their quest to better understand geodetic coordinate
systems and their use in GIS.
This presentation highlights the roots of surveying and geodetic measurement techniques and the
convergence of GIS, Geodetic and Engineering / Surveying Data.
Establishing LDP’s is a step in promoting better coordination and use of spatial databases among
the disparate GIS user communities.
Wang, S., Y.-H. Tseng and A. F. Habib Floating Models for 3D Building Modeling from Topographic
Maps and LiDAR Data, 7.
A novel approach of Model-based Building Reconstruction (MBBR) from topographic maps and
LiDAR data called Floating Models is proposed in this paper. Floating models are a series of pre-
defined primitive models which are floating in the space. Its size is adjustable by shape
parameters, while its location and rotation is controlled by pose parameters. A building is
reconstructed by adjusting these model parameters so the wire-frame model adequately fits into
the building’s outlines among the topographic maps, LiDAR data and DEM. This model-based
reconstruction provides good constraints to the shape of the model in contrary to the data-based
approach. In this paper, the model parameters are re-arranged into two groups: horizontal and
vertical parameters. The horizontal parameters are determined by fitting the top or bottom
boundary of the model to the topographic maps. The vertical parameters are decided by fitting the
top surface of the model to the LiDAR data and interpolating the datum point’s height from
DEM. To achieve a balance between accuracy and efficiency, a semi-automated reconstruction
procedure is proposed. First, the computer will automatically generate all building models with
polygonal prism models from maps and LiDAR data. Second, the operator may click a model and
change it to a box or gable-roof model, and approximately fit to the building’s outlines on the
topographic map. Third, the computer calculates the optimal fit between the model and the
topographic map based on an ad hoc least-squares model fitting algorithm. Fourth, the computer
calculates the roof or ridge height form the LiDAR points within the roof’s boundary. Finally, the
model parameters and standard deviations are provided, and the wire-frame model is
superimposed on all overlapped aerial photos for manual final-check. The operator can make any
necessary modification by adjusting the corresponding model parameter. A 528 hectare urban
area in Taipei City is reconstructed for testing. The fitting result is compared to the manually
photogrammetric reconstruction result. Most of modern buildings can be completely modeled,
and fitting result achieves the photogrammetric accuracy.
Survey control for AMG
Clabaugh, C. (2012), Automated Machine Guidance (AMG), Machine Control Online.
B-17

Gibson, T. (2010), Editor's Desk: Machine Control and Prefurbia, Professional Surveyor Magazine.
One cool part of this job is that I receive most if not all newsletters or magazines published by the
state surveying societies. I peruse them looking for story ideas and to keep updated on surveying
activities and trends (I also like to look for familiar faces). This time around, two issues of the
Empire State Surveyor, published by the New York State Association of Professional Land
Surveyors, caught my attention. - See more at:
http://www.profsurv.com/magazine/article.aspx?i=70725#sthash.avwyzhdp.dpuf
Group, G. S. (2010), How Design Survey, Design, Stakeout and AMG Interact, edited.
Kiongoli, S. (2010), Testing the accuracy of machine guidance in road construction, 91 pp, University of
Southern Queensland.
3D Machine Control and Guidance Systems first appeared on the market in the late 1990‟s. These
systems put a small computer within the cab of earthwork machines that utilized Global
Positioning System (GPS) satellites to relay position information to the computer (see figure 1.1).
The computer evaluates the actual position relative to its location in the proposed model. The
operator uses the information from the onboard computer to control the machine’s equipment. In
advanced cases, the onboard computer can be directly linked to the machine hydraulics,
controlling their operation with minimal input from operator.
Automated machine guidance using RTS was the major new application of this
advancement in technology. Robotic Total Stations (RTSs) were first introduced by Geodimeter
in 1990. These instruments incorporated servomotors and advanced tracking sensors which
allowed the instrument to track a target. RTS’s are now utilized in the construction and extractive
industries for the guidance of major earthworks machinery as well as in agriculture industry for
the guidance of machinery such as tractors and harvesters.
In today’s world, with the application of RTS, ATSs and now moving into real time AMG. The
accuracies and latency of both operations are still not well understood, it has become critical to
understand the exact accuracies that these instruments are capable of achieving whilst operating
in the field. Thus upon the completion of this project my aim is to have a better understanding of
both operational accuracies of several instruments, as well as their performances.
The working specification in most of road construction are general requires the tolerance of
±0.02m. In order to achieve this tolerance required for such work we need to determine if these
technologies are capable of meeting such accuracies.
Upon the completion of this project, we will have a better understanding of how the
accuracies of the machine guidance works and under what conditions the contractor, engineers or
surveyors can understand the performance of the AMG works better.
LEJA, M. (2013), Implement ation of Automated Machine Guidance for Ongoing Projects, 2 pp.
This directive provides guidance to the resident engineer regarding the contractor’s option to
request and obtain from Caltrans the original ground digital terrain model (DTM) and digital
design model (DDM), or the electronic design files for the contractor to create a DTM and DDM,
so that automated machine guidance (AMG) systems may be used on a project. AMG is a
technology that is becoming an industry standard for earthmoving on private and public works
projects. AMG is used on bulldozers, scrapers, blades, loaders, etc. Some paving equipment may
use AMG techniques.
LiDAR (2013), The Importance of Survey Control and Accuracy in AMG LiDAR News.
B-18

Neal, H. (2012), GPS Machine Control Creates Opportunity in the Surveying Industry, 02 21 00 Surveys.
Technological innovation always shakes up an industry, and the surveying industry is no
exception. All throughout surveying, machine guidance systems are gaining acceptance. The
increased adoption of this technology by the industry is renewing the importance of surveyors.
Machine guidance systems require skilled workers to calibrate and operate, and surveyors are in
the best position to do this job. In order to capitalize on the opportunity, surveyors will need to
learn to use machine guidance and promote their new skill.
Shen, X., M. Lu, S. Fernando and S. M. AbouRizk (2012), Tunnel boring machine positioning
automation in tunnel construction, Gerontechnology, 11(2), 384.
Tunnel construction using a tunnel boring machine (TBM) entails precise machine positioning
and guidance in the underground space. In contrast to traditional laser-based machine guidance
solutions, the proposed research aims to develop an automation alternative to facilitate TBM
guidance and as-built tunnel alignment survey during tunneling operations. Method A fully
automated system is proposed, in which a robotic total station is employed to automate the
continuous process of TBM -tracking and positioning in the 3D underground working space.
ZigBeebased wireless sensor networks are applied for wireless data communication inside the
tunnel. A camera is mounted on the telescope of the total station to capture online operational
videos. Real-time survey data are thus acquired, processed and displayed on a tablet PC on the
fly, resulting in: (i) TBM’s precise coordinates in the underground space; (ii) three-axis body
rotations of the TBM; (iii) tunneling change progress; and (iv) line and grade deviations of the
tunnel alignment. Results & Discussion For proof-of-concept, a prototype TBM-positioning
automation system has been developed in-house for laboratory testing. The accuracy testing was
conducted by the automation system and a specialist surveyor independently. The differences
between the two sets of surveying results were less than 2mm, which sufficiently validated the
high accuracy of the automation solution. In April 2012, the prototype will be field tested on a 2.4
m diameter and 1,040 m long drainage tunnel project in Edmonton, Canada.
Singh, R. (2010), Construction Automation: A six year plan in development, edited, Oregon Department
of Transportation.
CDOT. (2012), Surveys Manual: 12 Construction Surveys, 56 pp.

The Department is responsible for providing construction surveys to establish “control stakes”,
also known as “grade stakes” for basic line and grade for project construction unless the contract
specifies otherwise. From these control stakes the Contractor sets, when needed, supplemental
“working stakes.” The control stakes are also used by the Resident Engineer (RE) or the Structure
Representative to check the work for contract compliance.
This Chapter is to be used for all transportation improvement projects, including special funded
projects. It shall be used by all Department employees or consultants performing construction
surveys. It is their responsibility to adhere to all relevant processes, workflow, and provisions
stated in this chapter.
This chapter provides policy, procedures and general information regarding Department-
furnished construction stakes—the types of stakes furnished, and their density, placement, and
markings. These procedures are subject to requirements in Contract specifications, Contract
Change Orders (CCOs), or other provisions approved by the RE.
The 2010 Standard Specification defines “Engineer” as “The Resident Engineer responsible for
the Contract’s administration; the Resident Engineer’s authorized representative.” This chapter
B-19

uses the terms Resident Engineer (RE) and Surveys. Surveys is the RE’s representative
authorized to perform the construction surveys as described in this chapter.
MDOT. (2012), Construction Stakes, 4 pp.

After the first paragraph of Subsection 699.01 on page 585, add the following:
This work may be performed utilizing Automated Machine Guidance technologies and systems in
accordance with the standard specifications and contract documents. Automated Machine
Guidance (AMG) is defined as the utilization of positioning technologies such as Global
Positioning Systems (GPS), Robotic Total Stations, lasers, and sonic systems to automatically
guide and adjust construction equipment according to the intended design requirements. The
Contractor may use any type of AMG system(s) that result in compliance with the contract
documents and applicable Standard Specifications.
Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) is not a mandatory requirement. Automated
Machine Guidance (AMG), conventional staking, or a combination of both may be used at the
Contractor’s option for staking on this project.
Vonderohe, A. (2009), Training On Automated Machine GuidanceRep. CFIRE 03-21, 95 pp,

Construction and Materials Support Center
National Center forFreight and Infrastructure Research and Education (CFIRE), Madison, WI.
Beginning in 2006, WisDOT and the Construction Materials Support Center (CMSC) at UW-
Madison worked together to develop the specifications and the QA/QC procedures for GPS
machine guidance on highway grading projects. These specifications and procedures are being
finalized for inclusion in WisDOT 2009 construction projects.
With adoption of these new specifications and procedures into contracts there is a need to provide
field staff with necessary knowledge and skills to administer the contracts involving GPS
machine guidance.
DESIGN
Electronic Data, Geometrical Drafting
"CADApps." Retrieved 10/25, 2013, from http://www.cadapps.com.au/.
(2013), "Mid-America CADD Community: CADD User Community Focusing on Bentley Software."
Retrieved 11/3, 2013, from http://midamericacadd.org/.
FDOT (2007), Multi-Line Earthwork for Designers, 72 pp.

This manual, created by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Engineering / CADD
Systems Office (ECSO), instructs designers on how to use Multi-Line Earthwork to verify
earthwork quantities calculated from their created GEN file(s). The general file format,
commonly referred to as a GEN file, is an ASCII text file where cross section surface lines (i.e.,
existing ground, bottom of proposed template, etc.) are described individually. GEN files are
most commonly used to perform earthwork calculations. FDOT requires that GEN files be
included in Electronic Plans deliveries for specified surfaces in accordance with Chapter 8 of the
CADD Production Criteria Handbook. Throughout this manual, Arial Font text is used to indicate
the title of a screen/window and bold text to indicate words that appear on the screen/window,
such as a button name. Occasionally, bold text is also used to emphasize a point. A flow chart is
B-20

used to describe the work flow. Following the presentation of the flow chart, each step is shown
in logical order. Some steps may be skipped based on the answers to questions shown on the flow
chart. For more detailed information than that presented herein, Multi-Line Earthwork's on-line
help can be access by clicking Help in the top left corner of the current menu (shown below).
There is also a training manual, FDOT Multi-Line Earthwork, available with detailed example
problems.
AASHTO (2007), REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRONIC DATA TO BE SUPPLIED TO

CONSTRUCTION, 2 pp.
3D models detailing a project’s proposed design shall be developed for work on projects which:
1) significantly change the terrain surface, 2) could impact the determination of the need to
acquire right of way, 3) involves the construction of new bridge substructures, 4) could visually
confirm sufficient safe clearance for the traveling public during construction phases, or 5) could
verify that required clearances for construction operations and installations are achievable. At a
minimum, 3D models of the proposed finished surface shall be provided for all work areas of
projects which involve the following types of construction changes and proposed improvements.
Surface models shall also be provided for top of roadway subgrade in all areas of new
construction or full reconstruction.
Akinci, B., M. Fischen, R. Levitt and R. Carlson (2002), Formalization and automation of time-space
conflict analysis, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 16(2), 124-134.
With increasing pressure for shorter delivery schedules, space is a critical resource at construction
sites. Current industry practice lacks a formalized approach or tool to help project managers
analyze spatial conflicts between activities prior to construction. Consequently, time-space
conflicts occur frequently and significantly impact construction processes. Time-space conflicts
have three characteristics that impede the detection and analysis of time-space conflicts prior to
construction: (1) They have a temporal aspect; (2) they have different forms creating different
problems; and (3) multiple types of spatial conflicts can exist between a pair of conflicting
activities. This research formalizes time-space conflict analysis as a classification task and
addresses these challenges by automatically (1) detecting conflicts in four dimensions; (2)
categorizing the conflicts according to a taxonomy of time-space conflicts that is developed; and
(3) prioritizing the multiple types of conflicts between the same pair of conflicting activities. This
research extends previous research on construction space management by developing a taxonomy
of time-space conflicts and by defining an approach for the analysis of time-space conflicts prior
to construction.
Andrews, S. and S. Geiger (2005), Unlocking Design Data, in 19th Annual AGC/DOT Technical
Conference, edited, New York Department of Transportation New York.
Working with the engineering data behind paper plans. What type of data is available now for
contractor use, and what it can be used for. How to prepare for working with engineering
technology.
Azhar, S. (2011), Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the
AEC industry, Leadership and Management in Engineering, 11(3), 241-252.
Building information modeling (BIM) is one of the most promising recent developments in the
architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry. With BIM technology, an accurate
B-21

virtual model of a building is digitally constructed. This model, known as a building information
model, can be used for planning, design, construction, and operation of the facility. It helps
architects, engineers, and constructors visualize what is to be built in a simulated environment to
identify any potential design, construction, or operational issues. BIM represents a new paradigm
within AEC, one that encourages integration of the roles of all stakeholders on a project. In this
paper, current trends, benefits, possible risks, and future challenges of BIM for the AEC industry
are discussed. The findings of this study provide useful information for AEC industry
practitioners considering implementing BIM technology in their projects.
Bhat, C. R., S. Sivaramakrishnan and S. Bricka (2004), Conversion of Volunteer-Collected GPS Diary
Data into Travel Time Performance Measures: Literature Review, Data Requirements, and Data
Acquisition Efforts, Research Report Rep. FHWA/TX-05/0-5176-1, Research and Technology Transfer
Section/Construction Division P.O. Box 5080 Austin, TX 78763-5080.
Conventional travel-survey methodologies require the collection of detailed activity-travel
information, which impose a significant burden on respondents, thereby adversely impacting the
quality and quantity of data obtained. Advances in the Global Positioning System (GPS)
technology has provided transportation planners with an alternative and powerful tool for more
accurate travel-data collection with minimal user burden. The data recorded by GPS devices,
however, does not directly yield travel information; the navigational streams have to be processed
and the travel patterns derived from it. The focus of this research project is to develop software to
automate the processing of raw GPS data and to generate outputs of activitytravel patterns in the
conventional travel-diary format. The software will identify trips and characterize them by
several attributes including trip-end locations, trip purpose, time of day, distance, and speed.
Within the overall focus of the research, this report describes the data collection equipment
specifications, data collection protocols, and data formats, and presents a comprehensive
synthesis of the state of the practice/art in processing GPS data to derive travel diaries. This
synthesis is intended as the basis for developing input specifications and processing algorithms
for our software. A second objective of this report is to identify the data requirements for the
software development purposes and document the efforts undertaken to acquire the data.
Chau, K., M. Anson and J. Zhang (2004), Four-dimensional visualization of construction scheduling and
site utilization, Journal of construction engineering and management, 130(4), 598-606.
Four-dimensional (4D) models link three-dimensional geometrical models with construction
schedule data. The visual link between the schedule and construction site conditions is capable of
facilitating decision making during both the planning and construction stages. The emphases of
these 4D developments have often been placed at the level of construction components. Practical
features assisting site management are at times lacking in the following areas: (1) generation of
site usage layouts; (2) estimation of quantities of construction materials; and (3) cost evaluation.
In order to pinpoint these deficiencies, the objective of this work is to enable visual study of the
effects of job progress on the logistics and resource schedules. This paper presents a 4D
visualization model that is intended both to help construction managers plan day-to-day activities
more efficiently in a broader and more practical site management context and to thereby add to
our knowledge and understanding of the relevance of modern computer graphics to the
responsibilities of the construction site manager. A brief site trial of the software is described at
the conclusion of the paper.
Cho, A. and staff (2009), Building Information Modeling Boosters Are Crossing That Bridge, 2.
B-22

Cho, Y-K., C. T. Haas, K. Liapi and S. Sreenivasan (2002), A framework for rapid local area modeling
for construction automation, Automation in Construction, 11(6), 629-641.
Rapid 3D positioning and modeling in construction can be used to more effectively plan,
visualize, and communicate operations before execution. It can also help to optimize equipment
operations, significantly improve safety, and enhance a remote operator's spatial perception of the
workspace. A new framework for rapid local area sensing and 3D modeling for better planning
and control of construction equipment operation is described and demonstrated. By combining
human-assisted graphical workspace modeling with pre-stored Computer-Aided Design (CAD)
models and simple sensors (such as single-axis laser rangefinders and remote video cameras),
modeling time can be significantly reduced while potentially increasing modeling accuracy.
Ciccarone, R. (2009), TRB Regenerating Digital Terrain Data for use wuth Contractor's Equipment, in
TRB's annual meeting, edited, Washington DC.
Contreras, M., P. Aracena and W. Chung (2012), Improving Accuracy in Earthwork Volume Estimation
for Proposed Forest Roads Using a High-Resolution Digital Elevation Model, Croatian Journal of Forest
Engineering, 33(1), 125-142.
Earthwork usually represents the largest cost component in the construction of low-volume forest
roads. Accurate estimates of earthwork volume are essential to forecast construction costs and
improve the financial control of road construction operations. Traditionally, earthwork volumes
are estimated using methods that consider ground data obtained from survey stations along road
grade lines. However, these methods may not provide accurate estimates when terrain variations
between survey stations are ignored. In this study, we developed a computerized model to
accurately estimate earthwork volumes for the proposed forest roads by using a high-resolution
digital elevation model (DEM). We applied our model to three hypothetical forest road layouts
with different ground slopes and terrain ruggedness conditions. We examined the effects of
various cross-section spacings on the accuracy of earthwork volume estimation assuming that 1-
meter spacing provides the »true« earthwork volume. We also compared our model results with
those obtained from the traditional end-area method. The results indicate that as cross-section
spacing increases the accuracy of earthwork volume estimation decreases due to lack of the
ability to capture terrain variations. We quantified earthwork differences, which increased with
terrain ruggedness ranging from 2 to 21%. As expected, short cross-section spacing should be
applied to improve accuracy in earthwork volume estimation when roads are planned and located
on hilly and rugged terrain.
Corporation, G. (2000), GEOPAK Perspectives, edited, p. 4.
Ha, Q., M. Santos, Q. Nguyen, D. Rye and H. Durrant-Whyte (2002), Robotic excavation in construction
automation, Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE, 9(1), 20-28.
This article presents some results of the autonomous excavation project conducted at the
Australian Centre for Field Robotics (ACFR) with a focus on construction automation. The
application of robotic technology and computer control is one key to construction industry
automation. Excavation automation is a multidisciplinary task, encompassing a broad area of
research and development. The ultimate goal of the ACFR excavation project is to demonstrate
fully autonomous execution of excavation tasks in common construction, such as loading a truck
or digging a trench. A number of difficult theoretical and practical problems must be solved to
achieve this objective. The problems fall into three main groups: excavation planning, sensing
and estimation, and control
B-23

Hampton, T. (2005), 3D Grade Control Puts Designers Right in the Operator’s Seat, in Enigineering
News Record, edited.
Automation is rocking traditional earthmoving and project teams have to make changes
Hannon, J. J. (2007), NCHRP Synthesis 372 Emerging Technologies for Construction DeliveryRep. 978-
0-309-09791-8, Transportation Research Board.
Hannon, J. J. (2008), NCHRP Synthesis 385 Information Technology for Efficient Project Delivery,
Transportation Research Board.
This synthesis identifies “best practices” for the seamless sharing of information throughout all
phases of the project delivery process. Best practices were reported by survey respondents and
through literature review in the department of transportation (DOT) Planning, Design,
Procurement, Construction, and Operations and Maintenance functional areas, including
procedural, institutional, human, and technical constraints and mechanisms. Principal
investigators surveyed DOT information technology and project/program management
professionals on DOT data exchange practices. After analysis of the data, several DOTs were
selected for close inspection case studies. The results of these surveys, along with a review of
literature published on the subject of data interoperability associated with project lifecycle
processes, constitute the basis of this report. Information presented in this report was derived
from a survey questionnaire and supplemented by a literature search, as well as a DOT case
study. John Jeffrey Hannon and Tulio Sulbaran, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg,
B-24

Hannon, J. J. and D. Townes (2007), GPS Utilization Challenges in Transportation Construction Project
Delivery, paper presented at The construction and building research conference of the Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Georgia Tech, Atlanta USA,
2007/09/06/7.
Transportation agency surveying functions have a well documented record over the last 10 years
of embracing Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to enhance their planning and design
requirements. A second evolution is in process as pertains to GPS. Agencies are engaged in GPS
research, developing guidance specifications, and some have incorporated new standard
specifications. Due to relatively recent advancements in technology, construction contractors are
requesting 3D digital surveying datasets produced by agency surveyors for use in delivery of
construction projects. Among other advantages, these digital models allow for contractor
machine-controlled grading operations which increase accuracy and decrease equipment and
labor resources for both agency (owner) and contractor. Based upon literature review, a survey of
transportation agency adoption and personal work experience with agencies and contractors, this
paper discusses the benefits of GPS in the delivery of transportation construction projects, the
new mindset and procedure required for application, and how this technology relates to standard
agency construction specifications. The information should be valuable to all contractual
stakeholders involved in, or contemplating involvement with, utilizing the advantages of GPS in
transportation construction project delivery.
Hoeft, T. (2009), lmproving Construction Efficiencies Through 3D Electronic Design, edited by C.

Jarhen, p. 1.
Invitation to praticipate- Improving Construction Efficiencies Through 3D Electronic Design
Kratt, D. (2005), Design Memorandum NO. 18-05-Electronic Files Submittal with the Final Contract
Plans, edited.
Certain electronic files are required to be delivered with the submission of final contract plans to
central office division of highway design. while the first generation mylar signer by the project
manager are the legal binding set of final contract plans, the electronic files are used to create
these plans are extremely useful in the review, publication, bidding, construction and archive
processes.
Leja, M. and R. Buckley (2004), Cross-Section Preparation and Delivery Memorandum, edited,
California Department of Transportation.
Lobbestael, J. (2013), ELECTRONIC DATA USAGE edited, Michigan Department of Transportation
Lobbestael, J. (2013), Moving Towards Electronic Model Data - Cradle to Grave, edited, Michigan
Department of Transportation
Maeda, J. (2005), Current research and development and approach to future automated construction in
Japan, paper presented at Construction Research Congress.
B-25

Automated construction technologies have been developed and introduced in the Japanese
construction industries since the 1980s. However, the construction industry remains a craft-
oriented and labor-intensive industry with minimal automation of tasks. Automation of
construction processes has potential significant effects on construction of buildings. This paper
describes the history of research and development of automation technology in Japan and the
advantages to using construction robots and automated building construction system at the field
level, and examines possible application and requirements in future construction operations. In
addition, current research and development of robotics technology is introduced with concrete
examples.
NavisWorks NavisWorks 3D Design File Formats, edited.

The following table provides an extensive list of the CAD applications currently supported by
NavisWorks³, along with any additional information that may be necessary to review your files in
NavisWorks.
Platt, A. E. (2007), 4D CAD for highway construction projects, Pennsylvania State University.
Sampaio, A. Z., A. R. Gomes and J. Prata (2011), Virtual Environment in Civil Engineering: Construction
and Maintenance of Buildings, paper presented at ADVCOMP 2011, The Fifth International Conference
on Advanced Engineering Computing and Applications in Sciences.
This paper describes two prototype applications based on Virtual Reality (VR) technology for use
in construction and maintenance planning of buildings. The first,
applied to construction, is an interactive virtual model designed to present plans three-
dimensionally (3D), connecting them to construction planning schedules, resulting in a valuable
asset to the monitoring of the development of construction activity. The 4D application considers
the time factor showing the 3D geometry of the different steps of the construction activity,
according to the plan established for the construction. The 4D model offers a detailed analysis of
the construction project. It allows the visualization of different stages of the construction and the
interaction between all stakeholders during the actual construction activity. A second VR model
was created in order to help in the maintenance of exterior closures of walls in a building. It
allows the visual and interactive transmission of information related to the physical behavior of
the elements. To this end, the basic knowledge of material most often used in façades, anomaly
surveillance, techniques of rehabilitation, and inspection planning were studied. This information
was included in a database that supports the periodic inspection needed in a program of
preventive maintenance. This work brings an innovative contribution to the field of construction
and maintenance supported by emergent technology.
in construction and maintenance planning of buildings. The first, applied to construction, is an
interactive virtual model designed to present plans three-dimensionally (3D), connecting them to
construction planning schedules, resulting in a valuable asset to the monitoring of the
development of construction activity. The 4D application considers the time factor showing the
3D geometry of the different steps of the construction activity, according to the plan established
for the construction. The 4D model offers a detailed analysis of the construction project. It allows
the visualization of different stages of the construction and the interaction between all
stakeholders during the actual construction activity. A second VR model was created in order to
B-26

help in the maintenance of exterior closures of walls in a building. It allows the visual and
interactive transmission of information related to the physical behavior of the elements. To this
end, the basic knowledge of material most often used in façades, anomaly surveillance,
techniques of rehabilitation, and inspection planning were studied. This information was included
in a database that supports the periodic inspection needed in a program of preventive
maintenance. This work brings an innovative contribution to the field of construction and
maintenance supported by emergent technology.
Scarponcini, P. (2008), Methodology for Selection and Development of TransXML Schemas*,

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2024, 107-115,
doi:10.3141/2024-13.
NCHRP Project 20-64, TransXML, solicited the development of standard, public domain
extensible markup language (XML) schemas for the exchange of transportation data as well as
the creation of a framework for the development, validation, dissemination, and extension of
current and future schemas. The methodology used for the selection and development of the
initial set of TransXML schemas ensured their consistency, cohesiveness, and usefulness. Data
flow diagrams of the design and construction process had previously been developed for the
Minnesota Department of Transportation. They articulate steps in the design process as well as
the flow of data between these steps. The diagrams were analyzed to discover candidate data
flows that if supported by standardized XML schemas, could improve the design and construction
process. The content and structure of the data identified were then modeled with unified modeling
language (UML) class diagrams—roughly one UML package per data flow. Consensus of
interested parties was achieved through the project website, including specific agreement on data
elements and their associations. For each element, relevant attributes were decided, along with
their cardinality and data type. For associations, relationship types, cardinalities, and roles were
established. Diagrams for each area were compared to achieve consistency and to identify
common elements, the latter being extracted into separate UML packages. XML schemas were
then developed, based on the UML packages. The geography markup language (GML) was used
as the framework for the schemas, building on predefined GML elements and following GML
rules for developing application schemas. Sample applications were developed to demonstrate
how the schemas support the data flows.
Sheldon, D. and C. Mason (2009), A Proposal for Statewide CAD Standards in IowaRep., Howard R.
Green Company.
The MicroStation/GEOPAK and AutoCAD/Civil 3D platforms are widely used tools in the
design and drafting of infrastructure improvements. Recent advances in these platforms have
created new opportunities to increase quality, reduce risk, and save time and money during design
and construction. However, the state of Iowa is not presently realizing the full benefit of these
advances. This paper proposes a way for Iowa communities to realize these benefits through the
development and implementation of statewide Computer Aided Design (CAD) standards. This
proposal would not merely the appearance of construction drawings; rather, it would bring a
consistent flow and methodology to the work of design.
Siebert, S. and J. Teizer (2014), Mobile 3D mapping for surveying earthwork projects using an
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) system, Automation in Construction, 41, 1-14.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) systems as a data acquisition platform and as a measurement
instrument are becoming attractive for many surveying applications in civil engineering. Their
performance, however, is not well understood for these particular tasks. The scope of the
presented work is the performance evaluation of a UAV system that was built to rapidly and
B-27

autonomously acquire mobile three-dimensional (3D) mapping data. Details to the components of
the UAV system (hardware and control software) are explained. A novel program for
photogrammetric flight planning and its execution for the generation of 3D point clouds from
digital mobile images is explained. A performance model for estimating the position error was
developed and tested in several realistic construction environments. Test results are presented as
they relate to large excavation and earth moving construction sites. The experiences with the
developed UAV system are useful to researchers or practitioners in need for successfully adapting
UAV technology for their application(s).
Singh, S. (1997), State of the art in automation of earthmoving, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 10(4),
179-188.
A recent trend towards greater automation of earthmoving machines, such as backhoes, loaders,
and dozers, reflects a larger movement in the construction industry to improve productivity,
efficiency, and safety. This paper reviews related work in various disciplines drawn upon by
researchers—soil mechanics, computer graphics, kinematic and dynamical modeling,
optimization, control, and decision theory. A taxonomy is suggested into which various
automated systems reported in the literature, can be classified.
Söderström, P. and T. Olofsson (2007), Virtual Road Construction – a Conceptual Model, paper presented
at W78 Conference, Center for IT in Construction, Luleå University of Technology, Maribor, Slovenia.
Design, planning and logistics for road construction are increasingly performed using 3D models.
These models can subsequently be used to guide machines directly on site. At present there is no
direct integration of 3D de-sign and production planning of the construction work, which limits
use of the 3D models for optimization and real-time follow-up of mass haulage and machinery
logistics.This paper describes a conceptual model of an industrial process for machine guided
road construction projects where 3D design is integrated with production planning, enabling
production visualization (4D) and real-time follow-up. The aim is to create an integrated working
process to such an extent that redesign and replanning of activities and re-sources can actively be
optimized, based on observations and data collected during the production.
Söderström, P. and T. Olofsson (2007), Virtual Road Construction-A Conceptual Model, paper presented
at The 24th CIB-W78 Conference.
direct integration of 3D design and production planning of the construction work, which limits
use of the 3D models for optimization and real time follow-up of mass haulage and machinery
logistics. <div data-canvas-width="318.59257999999994" style="left: 467.297px; top:
532.333px; font-size: 16.7px; font-family: serif; transform: scale(1.01288, 1); transform-origin:
0% 0% 0px;">This paper describes a conceptual model of an industrial process for machine
guided road construction projects where 3D design is integrated with production planning,
enabling production visualization (4D) and real-time follow-up. The aim is to create an integrated
working process to such an extent that redesign and replanning of activities and resources can
actively be optimized, based on observations and data collected during the production.
Song, L. and N. N. Eldin (2012), Adaptive real-time tracking and simulation of heavy construction
operations for look-ahead scheduling, Automation in Construction, 27, 32-39.
This paper proposes an adaptive real-time tracking and simulation of heavy construction
operations for look-ahead scheduling during construction field operations. In this method,
construction operation data are constantly captured using tracking sensors and the data is then fed
B-28

into a simulation model for automatic model updating. This adaptive capability allows a pre-
defined simulation model to be constantly updated to reflect the changing project environment for
more accurate look-ahead scheduling. Compared with the traditional offline simulation that uses
stationary inputs, the capability of the proposed real-time simulation to dynamically incorporate
new project data and adapt to changes in field operations can improve the accuracy of project
look-ahead scheduling. A prototype system and case studies are presented to demonstrate the
feasibility of the proposed concept.
Tegtmeier, W., S. Zlatanova, P. Van Oosterom and H. Hack (2014), 3D-GEM: Geo-technical extension
towards an integrated 3D information model for infrastructural development, Computers & Geosciences,
64, 126-135.
In infrastructural projects, communication as well as information exchange and (re-)use in and
between involved parties is difficult. Mainly this is caused by a lack of information
harmonisation. Various specialists are working together on the development of an infrastructural
project and all use their own specific software and definitions for various information types. In
addition, the lack of and/or differences in the use and definition of thematic semantic information
regarding the various information types adds to the problem. Realistic 3D models describing and
integrating parts of the earth already exist, but are generally neglecting the subsurface, and
especially the aspects of geology and geo-technology. This paper summarises the research
towards the extension of an existing integrated semantic information model to include surface as
well as subsurface objects and in particular, subsurface geological and geotechnical objects. The
major contributions of this research are the definition of geotechnical objects and the mechanism
to link them with CityGML, GeoSciML and O&M standard models. The model is called 3D-
GEM, short for 3D Geotechnical Extension Model.
Connecticut DOT. (2007), Digital Design Environment GuideRep., 96 pp, Newington, CT.
Florida DOT. (2009), Chapter 13 - Roadway Standards FDOT CADD Production Criteria Handbook,
Florida Department of Transportation.
Minnesota DOT. (2013) "CADD Support and Resources." Retrieved 25/10, 2013, from
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/caes/.
Minnesota DOT. (2012), 3D Model Based Design Interim Guidelines.

The intention of a 3D model is to provide a comprehensive and true representation of a project
not only in the design phase, but also in construction.
Vahdatikhaki, F., A. Hammad and S. Setayeshgar (2013), Real-time simulation of earthmoving projects
using automated machine guidance, paper presented at Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium
on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining (ISARC).
Simulation techniques have offered significant boosts toward a cost-and-time-optimized planning
of construction projects by enabling project managers to effectively comprehend the behavior of
projects. Using historic data from projects of like nature, simulation considers uncertainties
involved in a project through accommodating the stochastic modeling parameters. However, the
heavy reliance on the statistical data and not taking into account the context-specific features of
the project cause the degradation in the realism and accuracy of the simulation models. Similarly,
the extent to which a historic pattern could be retrofitted to new projects will decrease in line with
the growing uniqueness of the projects and the novelty of construction methods. Furthermore, the
B-29

existing real-time simulation frameworks are not capable of distinguishing the transient
environmental changes, with minimal long-term impacts on the productivity, from the influential
changes that will greatly impact an operation. In addition, existing simulation tools are devoid of
location awareness, resulting in the inability to consider safety threats in their representation of
the project. To address these issues, this research proposes a framework based on the integration
of new tracking technologies used in Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) with simulation-
driven 4D modeling methods. The proposed framework automates the adjustment of the
simulation model based on the updated data from the site, and thus transforms simulation from a
predictive tool used at the planning phase to a proactive monitoring platform usable throughout
the planning and construction phases. A prototype is developed to test and demonstrate the
effectiveness of the proposed approach.
Voigt, J. (2013), Proper use of stringless slipform paving technology, edited.

Welcome to this Training Module on Proper Use of Stringless slipform paving technology. My
name is Jerry Voigt, and I am the President and CEO of the American Concrete Pavement
Association. We are very pleased to partner with the Federal Highway Administration to bring
you this training module. Stringless paving is a rapidly advancing technology in our
industry. Our goal is to provide you with both fundamental and comprehensive information to
help you understand how stringless technology works and what it takes to use it properly.
Vonderohe, A. (2009), Status and Plans for Implementing 3D Technologies for Design and Construction
in WisDOTRep. WisDOT Project ID: 0657-45-11, Construction and Materials Support Center University
of Wisconsin – Madison Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
The original objective of this project was to assist WisDOT in preliminary stages of identifying
institutional issues, relevant design and construction work processes that would be impacted,
consequences, and legal issues that could arise by directly providing design 3D models to
contractors for contractual purposes. After meeting this objective and conducting a stakeholder
workshop to validate findings and develop recommendations, the project scope was expanded
beyond 3D models and DTMs to include 3D technologies in general. Accordingly, the final
objective of the project was development of a high-level implementation plan for 3D technologies
and methods for design and construction.
Vonderohe, A. (2009), WisDOT Implementation Plan: 3D Technologies for Design and ConstructionRep.
CMSC: MC 08- 09 – WO 2.6, Construction and Materials Support Center University of Wisconsin –
Madison Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
This plan addresses a management strategy and six initiatives for moving towards realization of
the vision statement. Components of the initiatives are either underway within WisDOT or
proposed herein and relate directly to three-dimensional technologies and methods. The
objectives of the plan are to establish or reiterate justifications for the initiatives, identify
relationships among them, coordinate among the initiatives where appropriate, recommend
actions that will help realize synergistic benefits, assign priorities, establish or reiterate milestones
and timelines, and identify responsible parties.
Wang, X., M. J. Kim, P. E. D. Love and S.-C. Kang (2013), Augmented Reality in built environment:
Classification and implications for future research*, Automation in Construction, 32(0), 1-13,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.11.021.
Augmented Reality (AR) has the potential to change how people interact and experience their
surrounding environment. During the last decade a considerable amount of research has been
undertaken within the built environment. With this in mind, this paper aims to provide a state-of-
B-30

the-art review of mainstream studies undertaken between 2005 and 2011 within the normative
literature. We found that a total of 120 articles were published in the normative built environment
literature within this period. Articles were classified according to their concept and theory,
implementation, evaluation (effectiveness and usability) and industrial adoption. The
classification of the literature has enabled gaps in the AR literature to be identified and future
research directions to be proposed.
Zhang, C., A. Hammad and H. Bahnassi (2009), Collaborative Multi-Agent Systems for Construction
Equipment Based on Real-Time Field Data Capturing, Journal of Information Technology in
Construction, 14, 204-228.
This paper proposes collaborative multi-agent systems for real-time monitoring and planning on
construction sites. A multi-agent system framework is discussed to support construction
equipment operators by using agents, wireless communication, and field data capturing
technologies. Data collected from sensors attached to the equipment, in addition to an up-to-date
3D model of the construction site, are processed by the multi-agent system to detect any possible
collisions or other conflicts related to the operations of the equipments, and to generate a new
plan in real time. The potential advantages of the proposed approach are: more awareness of
dynamic construction site conditions, a safer and more efficient work site, and a more reliable
decision support based on good communications.
Mechanistic Analysis
Desai, A. K. (2013), 3D FE Analysis of an Embankment Construction on GRSC and Proposal of a Design

Method, ISRN Civil Engineering, 2013.
Stone column is often employed for strengthening of an embankment seated on deep soft clay.
But in very soft clay having undrained shear strength less than or equal to 15 kPa, stone column
may not derive adequate load carrying capacity and undergo large lateral deformation due to
inadequate lateral confinement. In such circumstances, reinforcement to individual stone column
by geosynthetics enhances load carrying capacity and reduces lateral deformation. This paper
addresses parametric study on behaviour of embankment resting on Geosynthetic Reinforced
Stone Column (GRSC) considering parameters such as stone column spacing to diameter ratio,
deformation modulus of stone column material, geosynthetic stiffness, thickness of soft clay, and
height of embankment by 3D numerical analysis. Finally, equation for Settlement Improvement
Factor (SIF), defined as ratio between settlement of embankment without treatment and with
geosynthetic reinforced stone column, is proposed that correlates with the major influence
parameters such as stone column spacing to diameter ratio, deformation modulus of soft clay, and
geosynthetic stiffness.
Transportation, M. D. o. "CADD Support and Resources." Retrieved 25/10, 2013, from

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/caes/.
CONSTRUCTION
Earthworks (e.g., excavation, placement)
"AGPS Inc.- Advanced Geo Positioning Solutions Inc.". from http://www.agpsinc.com/
B-31

"Operating Engineers and Other Construction Equipment Operators Career Profile, Video, Earnings,
Education, Prospects - Careers.org." from http://occupations.careers.org/47-2073.00/operating-engineers-
and-other-construction-equipment-operators.
(2005), "The Integrated Construction Site." Retrieved 8/5, from

http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/const_bulletin_ic_site_08_05.pdf.
(2008), 'MovingDirt's Machine Control Update, in Kerville's MovingDirt Magazine, edited.

Transfer of Data Files to and from Machines at Work is Integral to Trimble’s successful
Involvement in a Major WA Road Project
(2008), Perfect trim with Millimeter GPSTM on 20-year-old grader, in Topcon, edited.
(2013), "2013 Construction Industry Conference." 2013 Construction Industry Conference. from
https://www.agcnys.org/files/Const_Industry_Conference/2013_industry_confONLINE.pdf.
The Future Construction Leaders of New York State (FCLNYS) program teaches participants the
issues involved in managing a construction business in New York State. Attendees will learn, in a
structured environment, what they might otherwise spend years learning from personal
experience. From 1998 to 2013, AGC has graduated more than 250 professionals from the Future
Construction Leaders program. Both participants and their executive leaders rate the program as a
huge success. This session is the first of four meetings that comprise this program.
(AGC), A. G. C. "Construction Magazine." Retrieved 25/10, 2013, from

http://www.constructormagazine.com/.
IAARC (2013). "International Association for Automation and Robotics in Construction (IAARC)."
Retrieved 25/10, 2013, from http://www.iaarc.org/index.html.
Aðalsteinsson, D. H. (2008), GPS Machine Guidance in Construction Equipment, Háskólinn Í Reykjavík.

The aim of this project is to compare the performance of a excavator with GPS guidance system
on the one hand and on the other hand a excavator in same type of work, which was done the
traditional way and with surveying. A predetermined construction job was performed. i.e. the
digging of trench in two different ways. On one hand a surveyor performed the surveying needed
before the job was performed, and while it was done, and the excavator was working according to
those measurements and stakes. On the other hand the same job was performed by a excavator
which was equipped with GPS machine guidance and no surveying performed by surveyors, but
the job was preformed according to a model of the project, which was loaded into the machine
equipment. Both jobs were monitored with precise measuring equipment. The outcome was
measurable realistic comparison of two work procedures on comparable work, regarding time,
material and productivity. The outcome should tell contractors whether GPS machine guidance is
optimal and leading to increased profitability.
Alliance, S. G. (2008), New Perth Binbury Highway: Project Facts 02, in Southern Gateway Alliance,
edited.
SGA was formed to design, construct and deliver the New Perth Bunbury Highway (NPBH)
B-32

Alsobrooks, B. Introduction of 3D Technology & Machine Control Systems, edited.

De-mystify 3D Machine Control, Highlight areas where 3D Machine Control is used and how
these projects benefited, How to analyze which tool will help you meet or exceed project
specifications, A look at some new, high tech grade control tools that are changing the way
grading is being done. Key Points for successful 3D operations, Trouble shooting techniques that
apply to all 3D systems
Beetz, A. and V. Schwieger (2008), Integration of Controllers for Filter Algorithms for Construction
Machine Guidance, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance
2008, 2008.
In the past years the Institute for Applications of Geodesy to Engineering has developed a
hardwarein- the-loop simulator for guiding and controlling of construction machines. This
simulator consists of a tachymeter (Leica© TCRP 1201) for measurement of positions, a model
truck (scale 1:14) as construction machine, a remote control connected to a PC over digital
analogue converter and LabVIEW© as application development system. In the meantime it is
possible to test different controllers in real time together with a Kalman Filter which is used to
reduce noise of measurement data. The controllers can be changed any time during the drive. The
same is valid for the activation of the Kalman filter. To compare quality of the controllers (P, PI,
PID, 3-Point-Controller) the root mean square (RMS) was calculated using the lateral deviation.
The RMS reached values between 2-3 mm.
Cho, A. and staff (2009), Building Information Modeling Boosters Are Crossing That Bridge, 2.
Cho, Y.-K., C. T. Haas, K. Liapi and S. Sreenivasan (2002), A framework for rapid local area modeling
for construction automation, Automation in Construction, 11(6), 629-641.
Rapid 3D positioning and modeling in construction can be used to more effectively plan,
visualize, and communicate operations before execution. It can also help to optimize equipment
operations, significantly improve safety, and enhance a remote operator's spatial perception of the
workspace. A new framework for rapid local area sensing and 3D modeling for better planning
and control of construction equipment operation is described and demonstrated. By combining
human-assisted graphical workspace modeling with pre-stored Computer-Aided Design (CAD)
models and simple sensors (such as single-axis laser rangefinders and remote video cameras),
modeling time can be significantly reduced while potentially increasing modeling accuracy.
Clarke-Hackston, N., J. Belz and A. Henneker (2008), Guidance for Partial Face Excavation Machines,
paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance 2008, 2008.
For the construction of tunnels and other underground structures, extraction of the exact amount
of material is of paramount importance both economically and for engineering purposes. In the
Sequential Support Method (NATM) immediate (sequential) and smooth support by means of
shotcrete, steel arches, lattice girders and rockbolts, either singly or in combination are used;
cutting of the precise profile (albeit sometimes of complex geometry) is an integral part of the
method. In order to save unnecessary excavation and provide better information to the machine
operator, VMT GmbH has developed a system to support precise excavation of the tunnel profile
when using roadheaders or other partial face cutting machines. This paper outlines the principles
of this system with examples from Australia, Germany, Sweden and Spain and will cite examples
of typical savings achieved.
B-33

Clarke-Hackston, N., M. Messing and E. Ullrich (2008), Geodetic Instrumentation for Use on Machine
Bored Tunnels, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance 2008,
2008.
As advance rates of TBM bored tunnels increase, it is essential that all aspects of the control of
the machine and the tunnel support are able to operate at the desired rate. This paper describes the
innovative ways that the basic guidance system has been adapted to cater for the TBM’s that are
currently in use used on the Gotthard tunnel where the traditional line of sight throughout the
backup gear is continuously obstructed due to the use of a sprayed concrete support facility to the
use. The guidance system utilizes features from the well proven system for distance and curved
pipejacking applications where the main reference is attached to the moving pipe (tunnel lining).
Accurate steering of the tunnelling machine is essential if the segmental lining is to be efficiently
installed. The use of ring sequencing software for the determination of the ring type and rotation,
significantly aids the rapid placement of the most appropriate ring, which in turn can be
monitored for any immediate convergence with the innovative chained inclinometer convergence
measurement system. All of this information together with the surface mapping, geotechnical,
and surface monitoring data bases can be fully integrated with the monitoring of the machines
operating parameters in the Controlled Boring Process software integration package to give the
machine operator a complete graphical display of all that is happening around him, to ensure
optimum control and speed of safe advance.
Engineering, 33(1), 125-142.
Engineers, W. P. O. "Joint Apprentinceship Training Program." Retrieved 25/10, 2013, from

http://www.wpaoperators.org/index.cfm.
Foreman, C. (2005), "Grading is made easier with GPS " Construction Week. Retrieved Saturday, 28 May
2005 4:00 AM, 2013, from http://www.arabianbusiness.com/grading-is-made-easier-with-gps-
205407.html.
B-34

Geosystems, L. (2004), Laing Contractors invest in Gradestar GradeStar 1pp., Leica Geosystems,
Machine Automation.
machine control from Leica Geosystems to deliver engineering value and provide greater job site
accuracy. The GradeStar machine control system, based on the robotic TPS1100 Total Stations
series, was installed on a Cat 12G grader over an existing Sonicmaster system. This 3D machine
control system enables grader operators to complete grading work in a shorter amount of time,
more efficiently and with greater accuracy.
Grandia, C. (2006), GPSing Saves Second Guessing, in Midwest Contractor, edited, pp. 6-8.
This article discuesses Steger Construction, a contractor that lists the benefits of GPS Technology
in their company.
Ha, Q., M. Santos, Q. Nguyen, D. Rye and H. Durrant-Whyte (2002), Robotic excavation in construction
automation, Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE, 9(1), 20-28.
This article presents some results of the autonomous excavation project conducted at the
Australian Centre for Field Robotics (ACFR) with a focus on construction automation. The
application of robotic technology and computer control is one key to construction industry
automation. Excavation automation is a multidisciplinary task, encompassing a broad area of
research and development. The ultimate goal of the ACFR excavation project is to demonstrate
fully autonomous execution of excavation tasks in common construction, such as loading a truck
or digging a trench. A number of difficult theoretical and practical problems must be solved to
achieve this objective. The problems fall into three main groups: excavation planning, sensing
and estimation, and control
Kaufmann, K. and R. Anderegg (2008), 3D-Construction Applications III GPS-based Compaction

Technology, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance 2008,
2008.
GPS based compaction with vibratory rollers is finding its way onto building sites all over the
world. Thanks to its ability to visualise the compaction process, what started out as an idea for
providing users with an improved means of area-wide dynamic compaction monitoring has
rapidly developed into a straightforward and effective method of process control. GPS based
compaction links machine kinematics with job-integrated process measurement and control
technology in the vibratory roller, thus establishing overall process control and monitoring
Kebede, T. T. (2008), Development and Implementation of Filter Algorithms and Controllers to a

Construction Machine Simulator, Royal Institute of Technology.
Different geodetic techniques can be integrated in construction processes to have effective, time
saving and cost minimizing construction through geometric control and guidance of the
construction machines on the designed alignment. This can be achieved by integrating a
tachymeter as kinematic positioning sensor. The institute of application of geodesy to engineering
(IAGB) of University of Stuttgart has developed a modular position guidance toolbox (a
construction machine simulator) that comprises a model truck of scale 1:14, of Leica TPS1201
tachymeter, remote controller and a computer. Tachymeters can work as kinematic measuring
devices by integrating them to a construction process, in real time, using automatic closed-loop
control systems with feedbacks. The geometric deviation between the measured and given
trajectories can be minimized to some optimized limit using different types of controllers. With
P-I-D controllers a better accuracy can be achieved, and with integration of Kalman filter to the
control system the controller quality can be improved. It is also possible to account for the
B-35

dynamic effect on the model truck at higher velocities; however, the accuracy is very small due to
some practical working limitations of tachymeter (such as low scanning rate and dead time) as
kinematic position sensor at higher velocities.
KOMATSU (2008), "KOMATSU’S NEW PAT BLADE DOZER IS MACHINE CONTROL-READY."

Retrieved 19/09/2008, 2013, from
http://www.komatsu.com.au/AboutKomatsu/NewsAndPublications/News/Pages/KOMATSU%E2%80%9
9S-NEW-PAT-BLADE-DOZER-IS-MACHINE-CONTROL-READY.aspx.
Maeda, J. (2005), Current research and development and approach to future automated construction in
Japan, paper presented at Construction Research Congress.
Automated construction technologies have been developed and introduced in the Japanese
construction industries since the 1980s. However, the construction industry remains a craft-
oriented and labor-intensive industry with minimal automation of tasks. Automation of
construction processes has potential significant effects on construction of buildings. This paper
describes the history of research and development of automation technology in Japan and the
advantages to using construction robots and automated building construction system at the field
level, and examines possible application and requirements in future construction operations. In
addition, current research and development of robotics technology is introduced with concrete
examples.
Mahbub, R. (2008), An Investigation into the Barriers to the Implementation of Automation and Robotics
Technologies in the Construction Industry, Queensland University of Technology.
The rising problems associated with construction such as decreasing quality and productivity,
labour shortages, occupational saftey, and inferior working conditions have opend the possibility
of more revolutionary solutions within the industry. One prospective option is in the
implementation of innovative technologies such as sutomation and robotics, which has the
potential to improve the industry in terms of productivity, safety and quality. The construction
work site coud, theoretically, be contained in a safer environment, with more efficient execution
of the work, greater consistency of the outcome and higher level of control over the production
process. by identifying the barriers to construction automation and robotics implementation in
construction, and investigating ways in which to overcome them, contributions could be made in
terms of better understanding and facilitating, where releven, greater use of these technologie in
the construction industry so as to promote its efficiency. This research aims to ascertain and
explain the barriers to construction automation and robotics implementation by exploring and
establishing the relationship between characteristics of the construction industry and attributes of
existing construction automation and robotics technologies to level of usage and implementation
in three selected countries; Japan, Australia and Malaysia. These three countries were chosen as
their construction industry characteristics provide contrast in terms of culture, gross domestic
product, technology application, organisational structure and labour policies. This research uses a
mixed method approach of gathering data, both quantitative and qualitative, by emplying a
questiannaire survey and an interview schedule; using a wide range of sample from management
through to on-site users, working in a range of small (less than AUD0.2 million) to large
companies (more than AUD500million), and involved in a broad range of business types and
construction sectors. Detailed quantitative (statistical) and qualitative (content) data analysis is
performed to provide a set of descriptions, relationships, and differences. The statistical tests
selected for use include cross-tabulations, bivariate and multivariate analysis for investigating
possible relationships between variable; and Kruskal-Wallis and Man Whitney U test of
independent samples for hypothesis testing and inferring the research sample to the constrution
B-36

industy population. Findings and conclusions arising from the research work which include the
ranking schemes produced for four key ares of, the construction attributes on level of usage;
barrier variables; differing levels of usage between countries; and future trends, have established
a number of potential areas that could impact the level of implementation both globally and for
individual countries.
Mattivi, N. (2008), Trimble offers the Connected Construction Site Connecting Office, People and
Machines: The New Way to Increase Productivity on Earthmoving and Road Construction Sites, paper
Few will argue that construction is an industry of close tolerances, where precision and accuracy
can make or break a contractor’s bottom line. At the same time, the pressures of a compressed
schedule and tighter budget means jobs must be completed faster and cheaper, while improving
profitability. To ensure a smooth completion, all parts of a job need to be integrated – from
design to project completion to confirmation. To achieve this, contractors are increasingly relying
on cutting-edge technology at each phase of the construction process. Trimble offers a broad
range of solutions including conventional and 3D grade control systems, site positioning systems
as well as construction fleet and equipment management solutions. As part of the Trimble
Connected Site strategy, these solutions provide a high-level of process and workflow integration
from the design phase through to the finished project—delivering significant improvements in
productivity throughout the construction lifecycle. Grade control solutions extend from basic
systems that rely on string lines and lasers to highly precise three-dimensional solutions. Most of
the systems are added to construction equipment as an aftermarket add-on, although some
manufacturers, like Caterpillar, are now offering integrated systems at the time of manufacture.
McAninch (2007), Construction Heavy and Highway Services, edited, McAninch.
Memon, Z. A., M. Z. Abd and M. Mustaffar (2006), The Use of Photogrammetry Techniques to Evaluate
the Construction Project Progress, Journal Teknology.
The modeling of 3D objects from image sequence is a challenging problem and has been an
important research topic in the areas of photogrammetry and computer vision for many years.
Photogrammetry is the science of calculating 3D object co-ordinates from image and provides a
flexible and robust approach for measuring the static and dynamic characteristics for construction
management. This paper discusses the experience in Construction Technology and Management
Centre (CTMC), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) in adapting photogrammetry methods for
specific problems in the construction industry and outlines the principles of close-range
photogrammetry in evaluating the progress of construction projects. There is a need to use the
principles of close-range photogrammetry to evaluate the progress of construction project and to
develop the actual progress bar chart. The fundamental task of photogrammetry is to
rigorouslyestablish the geometric relationship between the image and the object, as it existed at
the time ofimaging event. One such software application is PhotoModeler Pro version from the
Canadian company Eos System has been suggested to extract the 3D features from 2D images.
The approach described in this paper demonstrates the use of digital photogrammetry as a
complementary method, which describes the 3D features extraction procedure in detail and
highlights the qualitative control that can be achieved during the construction. The technique uses
mainly off-the-shelf digitalcamera and software technologies that are affordable to most
organisations and able to provide acceptable accuracy.
Moon, H. S., H. S. Kim, L. S. Kang and C. H. Kim (2012), BIM functions for optimized construction
management in civil engineering, Gerontechnology, 11(2), 67.
B-37

Purpose: The aim of this study is to suggest configuration methodologies of active building
information model (BIM) functions that enable to practically control limitations by optimizing
schedule overlapping linked to its space models after analyzing workspace conflict analysis for a
bridge model. This study also suggests development methodologies of active BIM-functions,
linking an optimized method and improved strategies of future BIM-operation model through an
analysis of limitations of a passive BIM-operation system for architectural projects.
Method: The existing BIM-system manually performed a simplified comparison review of 3D-
shapes and its virtual reality (VR) analysis with visual manipulation of 3D-models in a virtual
environment. Such BIM functions require a separate analysis process to organize BIM-output
data as reprocessed business data. This has many limitations when directly utilizing the visual
information produced by commercial BIM-systems as practical operation data. Accordingly, this
study develops functions of an active BIM-system so that the managers can directly analyze
practical requirements by integrating an optimized analysis algorithm with the BIM-system to
improve the passive BIM operation environments. As a method of configuring the active BIM-
functions, an optimized algorithm for establishing resolution strategies for workspace conflicts is
constructed. As functions for supporting active BIM-operations, this study utilizes fuzzy and
genetic algorithm (GA) approaches. These approaches will be used to develop visualized risk
assessment model and workspace conflict optimization model based on active BIM.
Results & Discussion: By enhancing fragmentary analysis functions of simplified 3D-models
with the development of an active BIM-system, the BIM-system can utilize output information
derived from a process of analysis, evaluation and control of the BIM-models as a practical
operation information model for both design and construction phase. Therefore, it is expected that
an active BIM can simplify data analysis and the system operation process for managers with
virtual object models and expand the active BIM-system to the life cycle of civil engineering
projects.
Noland, R. (2012), BNI Coal Invests in Positioning Technology, edited.

BNI Coal discusses their investment in 3D machine control and fleet management and how they
have applied the technology thus far. This investment has increased productivity while reducing
their carbon footprint. Coal provides the world with over 40% of its electricity meeting affordable
energy needs while harmonizing with the environment.
Noland, R. (2013), Dredging in Zeebrugge - Carlson Machine Control DredgeRover™ Application

Video, edited, YouTube.
Peter DeMoor of Dredging International/DEME, discusses their "best of breed" approach for their
positioning systems for over 50 of their machines. DredgeRover™ is flexible and can be
configured for an array of excavators and cable cranes. For more information, please visit
www.carlsonmachinecontrol.com or email machine control@carlson.com. More links in the
video for Septentrio and MGB Tech.
Noland, R. (2013), Position Partners Mining Machine Control & Mine Site Solutions, edited, YouTube.
In this 10 minute interview, we sit down with Garry MacPhail, cofounder & director at Australia's
Position Partners, to discuss their new initiatives for mining machine control, fleet management,
material management and most importantly training and service. Position Partners exclusively
offers Carlson Machine Control for mine site management and 3D machine control for dozers,
diggers, haul trucks, bucket wheel excavators, draglines, surface miners and a much more. Other
applications served with Carlson Machine Control include solid waste landfills, dredging, 3D
drilling and solar panel pile driving. Enjoy the video and contact www.positionpartners.com.au
for more information.
B-38

Pilcher, G. (2009), AFB80 Session 404: Contractor Best Practices, in 2009 TRB 88th Annual Meeting,
edited, Washington, D.C.
PROLEC "Prolec - safety systems and productivity solutions for construction and demolition plant."
Retrieved 10/29, 2013, from http://www.prolec.co.uk/pdf/Pro%20Grade%20Excavators%20UK.pdf.
Rader, E. (2008), GPS-based 3D-Monitoring in Surface Mining, paper presented at 1st International
RMR has developed a software called GeoCAD-OP for GPS-based machine guidance for
wheelexcavators, spreaders and compactors. The 3D-real-time animated software is always
divided in a machine and an office application, latter can be used as a control station for any kind
of machine.
Roberts, G. W. and A. H. Dodson (2002), Construction Plant Control Using RTK GPS, 2002/04/19/26.
The use of GPS for construction plant control and guidance is a hot topic in the world of
geomatics. Research has been underway for many years into this area, mainly based on using
such RTK GPS systems on bulldozers. GPS allows real time centimetre positioning that allows
the bulldozer’s driver to operate the machinery in a semi-autonomous manner. Research has been
underway at the University of Nottingham for a number of years, investigating the use of GPS for
such an application. The research focuses on using RTK GPS for both bulldozer and excavator
control. The following paper details the work conducted at Nottingham, using a Trimble
SiteVision system. The work conducted focuses on both controlled trials as well as field trials. An
extensive series of real life trials have been conducted, whereby a bulldozer, using the system,
was used to re-shape a 100m x 50m piece of ground. The work involved, as well as the results are
detailed in the paper.
Rybka, R. (2005), Weather Challenges Mathiowetz On Highway 14, in Construction Bulletin, edited.
"Since we started this spring, we've never worked more than three consecutive days without
getting rained out. We did have one nine-day dry stretch right after the first of July." Brian
Mathiowetz was clearly frustrated. To emphasize his point, he counted out four more days on his
fingers: "Then last Sunday it rained, last Tuesday it rained, last Thursday it rained — and this
week it rained again on Monday. That's what our last 10 days have been like — disaster."
Schneider, C. (2013), 3D, 4D, and 5D ENGINEERED MODELS FOR CONSTRUCTION.

This Technical Brief provides an overview of 3D modeling, including technology applications
during design and construction, benefits to stakeholders, resource requirements, current state-of-
the practice, and advanced applications such as adding 4D and 5D components.
Schreiber, F., P. Rausch and M. Diegelmann (2008), Use of a Machine Control & Guidance System,
Determination of Excavator Performance, Cost Calculation and Protection Against Damaging of Pipes
and Cables, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance 2008, 2008.
The construction industry is confronted with permanent pressure regarding costs due to: •
increasing expenses, especially those affecting labor and energy; • shortened schedules for
completion of projects; • a highly complex legal system with a growing number of official laws
and standards. Possible solutions include efforts to make engineering construction more efficient
– i.e. by the introduction of industrial production methods to building practices. It is intended to
B-39

achieve further improvements of performance. Attention is focused on the earthmoving and road
construction areas. The adoption of GPS-referenced machine guidance systems based on a digital
terrain model (DTM) can significantly contribute to cost reduction. Much progress has been
achieved in these areas in the recent years: the introduction of laser-referenced 1-D machine
guidance systems, as well as 3-D machine guidance, tachymetrically referenced and GNSS-based
guidance systems for graders, bulldozers and excavators. A DTM-based machine guidance
system for excavators using GPS positioning has been developed at the University of Applied
Sciences, Coburg, Department of Civil Engineering.
Siebert, S. and J. Teizer (2014), Mobile 3D mapping for surveying earthwork projects using an
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) system, Automation in Construction, 41, 1-14.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) systems as a data acquisition platform and as a measurement
instrument are becoming attractive for many surveying applications in civil engineering. Their
performance, however, is not well understood for these particular tasks. The scope of the
presented work is the performance evaluation of a UAV system that was built to rapidly and
autonomously acquire mobile three-dimensional (3D) mapping data. Details to the components of
the UAV system (hardware and control software) are explained. A novel program for
photogrammetric flight planning and its execution for the generation of 3D point clouds from
digital mobile images is explained. A performance model for estimating the position error was
developed and tested in several realistic construction environments. Test results are presented as
they relate to large excavation and earth moving construction sites. The experiences with the
developed UAV system are useful to researchers or practitioners in need for successfully adapting
UAV technology for their application(s).
Singh, S. (1997), State of the art in automation of earthmoving, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 10(4),
179-188.
A recent trend towards greater automation of earthmoving machines, such as backhoes, loaders,
and dozers, reflects a larger movement in the construction industry to improve productivity,
efficiency, and safety. This paper reviews related work in various disciplines drawn upon by
researchers—soil mechanics, computer graphics, kinematic and dynamical modeling,
optimization, control, and decision theory. A taxonomy is suggested into which various
automated systems reported in the literature, can be classified.
Song, L. and N. N. Eldin (2012), Adaptive real-time tracking and simulation of heavy construction
operations for look-ahead scheduling, Automation in Construction, 27, 32-39.
This paper proposes an adaptive real-time tracking and simulation of heavy construction
operations for look-ahead scheduling during construction field operations. In this method,
construction operation data are constantly captured using tracking sensors and the data is then fed
into a simulation model for automatic model updating. This adaptive capability allows a pre-
defined simulation model to be constantly updated to reflect the changing project environment for
more accurate look-ahead scheduling. Compared with the traditional offline simulation that uses
stationary inputs, the capability of the proposed real-time simulation to dynamically incorporate
new project data and adapt to changes in field operations can improve the accuracy of project
look-ahead scheduling. A prototype system and case studies are presented to demonstrate the
feasibility of the proposed concept.
Talmaki, S. A. (2012), Real-time visualization for prevention of excavation related utility strikes, The
University of Michigan.
B-40

An excavator unintentionally hits a buried utility every 60 seconds in the United States, causing
several fatalities and injuries, and billions of dollars in damage each year. Most of these accidents
occur either because excavator operators do not know where utilities are buried, or because they
cannot perceive where the utilities are relative to the digging excavator. In particular, an operator
has no practical means of knowing the distance of an excavator’s digging implement (e.g. bucket)
to the nearest buried obstructions until they are visually exposed, which means that the first
estimate of proximity an operator receives is often after the digging implement has already struck
the buried utility. The objective of this dissertation was to remedy this situation and explore new
proximity monitoring methods for improving the spatial awareness and decision-making
capabilities of excavator operators. The research pursued fundamental knowledge in equipment
articulation monitoring, and geometric proximity interpretation, and their integration for
improving spatial awareness and operator knowledge. A comprehensive computational
framework was developed to monitor construction activities in real-time in a concurrent 3D
virtual world. As an excavator works, a geometric representation of the real ongoing process is
recreated in the virtual environment using 3D models of the excavator, buried utilities and jobsite
terrain. Data from sensors installed on the excavator is used to update the position and orientation
of the corresponding equipment in the virtual world. Finally, geometric proximity monitoring and
collision detection computations are performed between the equipment end-effector and co-
located buried utility models to provide distance and impending collision information to the
operator, thereby realizing real time knowledge-based excavator operation and control. The
outcome of this research has the potential to transform excavator operation from a primarily skill-
based activity to a knowledge-based practice, leading to significant increases in construction
productivity and safety. This is turn is expected to help realize tangible cost savings and reduction
of potential hazards to citizens, improvement in competitiveness of U.S. industry, and reduction
in life cycle costs of underground infrastructure.
Thomas, E. Advanced Earthwork, edited, Ohio Departemnet of Transportation (ODOT).
Tillman, Q. and B. Dana (2008), Can We Talk? - Getting LandXML Data Out to Construction, in
Session: 77, edited, Florida Department of Transportaion.
Topcon (2008), 3D-MC Automated Stakeless Grading, Rep. P/N: 7010-0893, 8 pp, Topcon.
Townes, D. (2013), Automated Machine Guidance, EXECUTIVE SUMMARYRep., 6 pp, Federal

Highway Administration.
Automated Machine Guidance utilizes data from sources such as 3D engineered models to
provide guidance to construction equipment to improve construction efficiency, lower
construction costs, reduce schedules, increase quality, increase safety, and be environmentally
friendly. This executive summary outlines some of the benefits of using this technology for
grading, milling, paving, and other types of construction applications.
NCDOT. (2007), Earthwork, North Carolina Department of Transportaion, edited, p. 12, North Carolina
Department of Transportaion.
Iowa DOT. (2014), Measurement and Earthwork Calculations.
Minnesota DOT. (2013) "GPS Machine Control." Retrieved 25/10, 2013, from
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/caes/machine.html.
B-41

Trimble (2002), BladePro 3D Automatic Grade Control SystemRep., 8 pp.
Trimble (2006), GCS600 Grade Control System for Excavators, edited.
using automated machine guidance, paper presented at The 30th ISARC, International Association for
Automation and Robotics in Construction (IAARC), Montréal, Canada.
using automated machine guidance, paper presented at Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium
on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining (ISARC).
B-42

Vantimmere, T. (2008), Just the Trim Terms & Conditions of Use Automated Trimmer Speeds Base
Construction, in Roads & Bridges, edited.
Wendebaum, J., J. Fliedner, B. Marx, A. Horn Moba and A. A. G. Mobile (2008), Local Positioning
Systems in Construction Basics, Limitations and Examples of Application, paper presented at 1st
International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance 2008, 2008.
machine operator carries out machine control tasks which, on the one hand require high precision,
on the other hand, however, involve frequent repetition or are highly monotone (for example
when operating along a guide wire). Furthermore, often high investments referring the outline
planning and the building measure itself are made without being able to implement the planning
data with adequate accuracy when executing or to sufficiently document the constructional
measures and a high remeasuring effort is necessary respectively. To abolish these weak points of
conventional construction, the use of positioning systems that on the one hand support and relieve
the operator respectively as well as on the other hand allow the documentation of the executed
tasks is a precondition. In the following several positioning possibilities and applications are
described in an overview.
Paving (e.g., PCC, HMA, milling, etc.)
Concrete Paving Equipment: For Highway and Airport Markets, edited.

Guntert & Zimmerman Slipform Paving Equipment are the most trusted machines in the business.
In 1956, G&Z pioneered and introduced the first concrete highway and airport slipform pavers
mounted on crawler tracks with automatic line and grade control. Today, G&Z offers a wide
range of concrete slipform paver models along with other ancillary equipment, such as
mechanical Dowel Bar Inserters, Placer Spreaders and Texture Cure Machines to suit your
present and anticipated future needs.
These equipment designs are based on G&Z’s more than half a century of experience. G&Z
paving equipment is built to last under the rigors of job site use, transport, and configuration
changes. Unique productivity features are incorporated in their design to reduce the time required
to transport, maneuver, and change paving widths without sacrificing the performance advantage
you have come to expect from a G&Z.
"GOMACO World 37.2 - Stringless Curb and Gutter is Here!". from

http://www.gomaco.com/Resources/worldstories/world37_2/fredweber.html.
"Guntert & Zimmerman: Company Profile." from http://www.guntert.com/index.htm.

The webpage of Guntert & Zimmerman, a leader company in stringless paving applications.
S600: Multi-Purpose Slipform Paver, edited.
The G&Z S600 Slipform Paver is designed around a multipurpose tractor frame that makes it
ideal for city street, secondary roads, highway and airport paving as well as a wide range of other
applications such as barrier walls, off-set paving and zero or minimum clearance paving. The
S600’s design has redefined what mobility means for a small paver without sacrificing the same
performance advantages contractors have come to expect from G&Z’s large and mid-size paver.
Utilizing G&Z’s time tested and rugged paving kit design, the S600 is capable of achieving
excellent ride numbers on the toughest IRI and zero blanking band projects.
B-43

The S600 features a double telescopic tractor frame, access walkway, and hose hinge system for a
nominal working range of 8’to 22’ (2.44 m to 6.71 m) the widest range in the industry. With the
use of bolt in tractor frame extensions, the S600 tractor can be used to pave out to 29’-5” (9 m)
without a Dowel Bar Inserter (DBI). The versatility of the S600 tractor allows the contractor to
quickly switch between applications and paving widths. The tractor components including center
module, bolsters, and jacking columns are designed with universal bolting patterns offering a
wide range of three and four track tractor configurations with or without swing legs. The S600 is
the narrowest profile machine on the market. In standard paving mode, there is less than 2’ (610
mm) from edge of pavement to widest point on the paver with sensor support arms removed. The
paving kit, front tie bar inserters and many of the other optional attachments on the S600 are
interchangeable with other G&Z paver models, giving the contractor a highly utilized fleet of
paving equipment.
S850: Mid-Size Slipform Paver, edited.
Guntert & Zimmerman pioneered concrete slipform paving equipment in the mid 1950’s. Today,
G&Z’s experience and passion for detail, along with the input of leading paving contractors
worldwide, has resulted in a midsize slipform paver that sets the standard. Design goals achieved
include:
• Dramatically reduced transport and reconfiguration time.
• Narrow profile design to pave in tight confines.
• Use of high quality electronic and hydraulic circuitry.
• Dramatically reduced heat and noise for the operator.
• Exceptional maneuverability and ease of operation.
• Unsurpassed structural integrity.
The versatile S850 Concrete Slipform Paver is designed to be the paver of choice for all your
paving needs from 12 ft. to 34 ft. (3.65 m to 10.36 m). With optional tractor frame extensions,
the S850 paver is capable of paving widths up to 39.4 ft. (12 m). The S850 is agile enough for
economic use on cut up urban and residential paving work without sacrificing the weight, power,
and balance required to produce superior riding highway and airport concrete pavements.
Investment in new paving technology has never been more compelling.
Stringless Methods, edited, p. 10.
Conventional concrete paving with a slipform paver requires the installation of a stringline and
support posts adjacent to the roadway to establish the correct pavement alignment and profile.
The stringline adds several additional feet (+/- 3 ft.) of required clearance to the paving envelope,
which is already wider than the pavement due to the tracks of the slipform paver and traffic
control devices. In addition, the stringline becomes an obstacle for equipment, concrete delivery
trucks, and finishing crews. If equipment access across the stringline is required, the stringline
must be lowered and reset, resulting in delays and introducing the potential for errors.
Stringless Paving Systems: Stringless Solutions for G&Z Paving Equipment, edited.
(2013), ROADWAY SURFACE 3D LASER SCANNING, edited, p. 6.

One of the problems experienced with concrete overlays is to minimize quantity overruns due to
the lack of survey of the existing pavement. The advent of laser scanning has opened a new
avenue for mapping of pavement surfaces before overlay construction to help eliminate excessive
overruns. To date pavement surface mapping has been done with conventional survey equipment
such as a total station, rod and level, GPS rover unit or vertical (looking down) sonic units that
double as profile measuring devices. These methods are labor intensive and often require traffic
control to obtain the data. Laser scanning can offer reduction in survey cost, savings in time, and
less interference to the traveling public.
B-44

(AGC), A. G. C. "Construction Magazine." Retrieved 25/10, 2013, from

http://www.constructormagazine.com/.
Castro-Lacouture, D., L. S. Bryson, C. Maynard, R. L. Williams Ii and B. Paul (2007), Concrete Paving
Productivity Improvement using a Multi-task Autonomous Robot, Construction Automation Group, I.I.T.,
2007.
To improve productivity in conventional concrete construction, autonomous robots that perform
specific tasks are being developed. Single-task robots are capable of enhancing specific functions,
though their impact on the overall productivity remains unclear. A robot that incorporates eash
task-specific piece of machinery used in the concrete paving process into one fully autonomous
unit is evaluated. Assessing potential productivity from the use of a fully automated process is a
required step for developing a full scale-system. With the purpose of identifying productivity
benefits in an automated concrete paving operation, two concrete paving processes will be
compared using simulation tools. One process is the conventional operation using intensive
labour, slip form paving machine and auxiliary equipment. The other process is the automated
operation using a fully autonomous robot. Applications of this assessment methodology based in
simulation will allow for the determination of productivity indicators of automated operations in
hazardous environments, using the respective results to complement protypical tests.
Ctc, L. L. C. W. R. Associates and S. Communication (2006), GPS in Construction Staking, Rep.,

Universtiy of Wisconsin-Madison.
The Construction and Materials Support Center at the University of Wisconsin–Madison
requested a synthesis of current practices in the use of Global Positioning System technologies in
highway construction, with a focus on contemporary uses of GPS in surveying and staking of
projects and the use of GPS for control of grading and paving equipment.
Dorée, A. and S. Miller (2008), Is Technology a Newchallenge for the Field of Construction
management?, University of Twente, 2008.
The central theme in Construction Management (CM) and CM research is improving the
performance of construction industry. Much effort and thought is given to improving project
performance. Within CM there is a natural inclination to focus on projects and project
management (PM). Companies in the construction industry also see project management as their
key competence. Both have little appreciation for technologies other than those that support
project management tasks. Technology – other than
Eisenhour, J. (2010), Iowa Shows Its Stuff and Goes Stringless, edited, Guntert & Zimmerman.
A presentation introducing the concepts of stringless paving, and Iowa DOT experience with this
technology in their projects
Engineers, W. P. O. "Joint Apprentinceship Training Program." Retrieved 25/10, 2013, from

http://www.wpaoperators.org/index.cfm.
Gräfe, G. (2008), Kinematic 3D Laser Scanning for Road or Railway Construction Surveys, paper
Kinematic laser-scanning has been a key application for the Mobile Road Mapping System
(MoSES) since a couple of years. The development of kinematic survey methods has reached a
level, that allows the use of kinematic survey technology for high precision applications.
B-45

Replacing static tachymetric surveys on the road itself, kinematic methods are more and more
applied for construction projects. The technology is used for rapid airfield monitoring as well as
an increasing number of highway construction projects or high-precision railway tunnel surveys.
The resulting data is acquired and generated with static survey accuracy, but much faster and with
much higher resolution - if needed. The results represent the basic survey information for
planning tasks or high precision machine guidance. Within the last months, the next development
steps have been taken with the aim to join static and kinematic scanner technology. High
precision static 3D laser scanners, which are capable of performing profiling measurement
modes, can now be used with the MoSES system. A special mounting and rapid-calibration
procedure is required to enable the use of e.g. Zoller&Fröhlich or FARO 3D laser scanners for
kinematic high precision applications. Pilot projects to demonstrate the capabilities of this new
3D laser scanner survey method have been high-speed surveys of automobile industry test sites or
subway tunnel surveys. The new developments were completed by adding infrared
photogrammetric camera technology to the MOSES system, which enables full night vision
survey capacity, which is of high interest for tunnel or airfield monitoring applications.
Harrington, D. (2010), CP Road MAP Brief 5-1: Stringless Concrete Paving, edited, p. 3, CP Road MAP.
Conventional concrete paving with a slipform paver requires the installation of a stringline and
support posts adjacent to the roadway to establish the correct pavement alignment and profile.
The stringline adds several additional feet (6 ft. +/-) of required clearance to the paving envelope,
which is already wider than the pavement due to the tracks of the slipform paver. In addition, the
stringline becomes an obstacle for equipment, concrete delivery trucks, and finishing crews. If
equipment access across the stringline is required, the stringline must be lowered and reset, result
ing in delays and introducing the potential for errors. Stringless paving is a technology that
eliminates the installation and maintenance of stringlines and has the potential to decrease the
need for surveying and increase the smoothness of the pavement profile. The benefits that can
result from stringless paving include increased production, decreased construction time, and
reduced potential for errors. Several companies have developed stringless equipment control and
guidance systems using technologies such as global positioning systems (GPS), robotic total
stations, and laser positioning. Stringless technology replaces the traditional stringlines with an
electronic tracking process that controls the horizontal and vertical operation of the slipform
paver. The construction industry has been using stringless technology for elevation and steering
control of equipment for a number of years. To date, the extensive use of this technology has
been applied to grading operations. However, stringless paving is an emerging technology for
concrete paving because has the potential to allow contractors and owner/agencies to receive
production benefits (e.g., reduced survey costs, fewer construction hours) while still meeting
smoothness requirements. Although stringless paving has not been used extensively, several
projects have been completed in the United States in the past few years. The techniques and
equipment used vary according to each project, but the general concepts and methods are the
same. The stringless paving methods described on the following 2 pages are specific to a research
project (TR-600) conducted in
Iowa in 2009. The final page of this docu ment contains additional information about stringless
paving research projects in Iowa.
Harrington, D. (2013), Actual Stringless PCC Paving Using 3D Model, edited.

This presentation provides a schematic description of the 3D Model for the Stingless PCC Paving
process
Harrington, D. S. (2010 ), Stringless Paving Applications, edited, TTCC/National Concrete Pavement

Technology Sacramento, California.
B-46

A presentation introducing some of the concepts of stringless paving technologies.
Kaufmann, K. and R. Anderegg (2008), 3D-Construction Applications III GPS-based Compaction

Technology, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance 2008,
2008.
GPS based compaction with vibratory rollers is finding its way onto building sites all over the
world. Thanks to its ability to visualise the compaction process, what started out as an idea for
providing users with an improved means of area-wide dynamic compaction monitoring has
rapidly developed into a straightforward and effective method of process control. GPS based
compaction links machine kinematics with job-integrated process measurement and control
technology in the vibratory roller, thus establishing overall process control and monitoring
Kerville, P. A World’s First— the stringless automation of CMI concrete pavers, in Kerville's MovingDirt
Magazine, edited, pp. 20-22.
One of the most impressive and interesting achievements on the Westlink M7 project, claiming a
number of world’s firsts, was the conversion of two of Abigroup’s CMI 4500 and 6500 concrete
pavers from string line to automatic total station control.
Kuhlmann, H. and H. Heister (2006), Steering Problems and Solutions During Construction of Roads,
Geodetic Institute, University of Bonn, Germany, 2006/05/22/24.
This paper deals with some problems and their solution which have occurred in automated
steering of construction machines during road construction. Position and orientation of the
construction machine are determined by sensors and will be instantaneously compared with
reference data of the road planning. Hydraulic cylinders of the machine will then be addressed in
a way that the geometry determining part of the machine, as e.g. the blade of a grader, can
establish the reference geometry of the layer to be incorporated. For this measuring and
controlling procedure different sensors are being used which are located in many different places
of the machine. It all happens while the machine is moving so that problems with the temporal
synchronization of the sensors and the machine inertia must also be considered.
Leja, M. and R. Buckley (2004), Cross-Section Preparation and Delivery Memorandum, edited,
California Department of Transportation.
Li, L. Field Evaluation of Stringless Portland Cement Concrete Paving, Rep., Iowa State University,
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering Ames, IA.
This paper describes results from a study evaluating stringless paving using a combination of
global positioning and laser technologies. A concrete paver manufacturer and a machine guidance
solution provider developed this technology and successfully implemented it on construction
earthmoving and grading projects. Concrete paving is a new area for considering this technology.
A concrete paving contractor in Iowa agreed to test the stringless paving technology on two
challenging concrete paving projects located in Washington County, Iowa during the summer of
2003. The research team from Iowa State University monitored the guidance and elevation
conformance to the original design. They employed a combination of physical depth checks,
surface location and elevation surveys, concrete yield checks, and physical survey of the control
stakes and string line elevations. A final check on profile of the pavement surface was
accomplished by the use of the Iowa Department of Transportation Light Weight Surface
Analyzer (LISA). Due to the speed of paving and the rapid changes in terrain, the laser
technology was abandoned for this project. Total control of the guidance and elevation controls
B-47

on the slip-form paver were moved from string line to a global positioning system (GPS). Results
indicate that GPS control is a feasible approach to controlling a concrete paver. Further
enhancements are needed in the physical features of the slip-form paver hydraulic system controls
and in the computer program for controlling elevation.
Mattivi, N. (2008), Trimble offers the Connected Construction Site Connecting Office, People and
Machines: The New Way to Increase Productivity on Earthmoving and Road Construction Sites, paper
Few will argue that construction is an industry of close tolerances, where precision and accuracy
can make or break a contractor’s bottom line. At the same time, the pressures of a compressed
schedule and tighter budget means jobs must be completed faster and cheaper, while improving
profitability. To ensure a smooth completion, all parts of a job need to be integrated – from
design to project completion to confirmation. To achieve this, contractors are increasingly relying
on cutting-edge technology at each phase of the construction process. Trimble offers a broad
range of solutions including conventional and 3D grade control systems, site positioning systems
as well as construction fleet and equipment management solutions. As part of the Trimble
Connected Site strategy, these solutions provide a high-level of process and workflow integration
from the design phase through to the finished project—delivering significant improvements in
productivity throughout the construction lifecycle. Grade control solutions extend from basic
systems that rely on string lines and lasers to highly precise three-dimensional solutions. Most of
the systems are added to construction equipment as an aftermarket add-on, although some
manufacturers, like Caterpillar, are now offering integrated systems at the time of manufacture.
Nasvik, J. (2005), Paving Without String, in Concrete Construction, edited, ConcreteConstruction.net.
Perkinson, C. L., M. E. Bayraktar and I. Ahmad (2010), The use of computing technology in highway
construction as a total jobsite management tool*, Automation in Construction, 19(7), 884-897,
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2010.06.002.
The integration of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) through the creation of a Total Jobsite Management Tool (TJMT) can
revolutionize the way contractors do business. The key to this integration is the collection and
processing of real-time GPS data that is produced on the jobsite for use in project management
applications. This paper establishes the state-of-practice of GPS data collection and utilization by
heavy construction contractor companies in the United States and presents an implementation
framework to assist construction contractor companies in navigating the terrain of GPS and ICT
use. The proposed framework, at a macro level, outlines the required ICT infrastructure,
addresses the organizational restructuring requirements, presents the related benefits and costs,
and provides guidelines for successful implementation.
Pilcher, G. (2009), AFB80 Session 404: Contractor Best Practices, in 2009 TRB 88th Annual Meeting,
edited, Washington, D.C.
Pilcher, G. (2009), Insider Perspective, in Professional Surveyor Magazine, edited, pp. 22-24.
A look into how a highway construction company uses automated machine control shows the
important role surveyors play.
Platt, A. E. (2007), 4D CAD for highway construction projects, Pennsylvania State University.
B-48

Rasmussen, R. O., S. M. Karamihas, W. R. Cape, G. K. Chang and R. M. Guntert (2004), Stringline

Impacts on Concrete Pavement Construction*, in TRB, edited, Washington, D.C.
Modern concrete pavement construction typically employs slipform paving equipment, especially
on major highways and airfields. Guidance of this equipment is commonly provided by sensing a
stringline that is set in advance by an engineering survey. While use of stringline guidance has
improved the quality of the pavement smoothness, some limitations of this technique are also
known to exist. This paper serves to explore three of these limitations in detail. The impact to
concrete pavement smoothness as a result of the chord effect, sag effect, and random survey error
are described here both conceptually and analytically. Of these three effects, the random error
introduced during the engineering survey is found to be the most pronounced. Furthermore, it will
be shown from this analysis that there are contradictions with what is sometimes considered
“good practice” for concrete pavement construction. More specifically, the idea that improved
smoothness can be obtained by simply going to a shorter spacing of the stringline stakes is not
always true. In fact, it will be demonstrated that optimum stringline spacing can be realized by
recognizing each of the effects described here, including the associated costs of mitigation.
Reed, M. (2007), "Algeria Claims Largest Public Works Project." Retrieved 9/26/2007, from
http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/Algeria-Claims-Largest-Public-Works-Project/9328/.
Rybka, R. (2006), Making the Grade with GPS, in Dixie Contractor, edited, pp. 10-12.
A Georgia contractor puts new technology to work to boost effi ciency, save money and make the
grade on 9.7 miles of new four-lane highway near Swainsboro, Ga.
Rybka, R. (2006), New Technologies for Better Highways, in Government Engineering, edited.
New technologies are enabling roads to be built faster, smoother, and for less money.

Sobanjo, J. O. (2006), GPS/GIS Inspection and Analysis Tools for Highway Construction GPS Data
Interface with SiteManager, Rep., Florida.
Söderström, P. and T. Olofsson (2007), Virtual Road Construction – a Conceptual Model, paper presented
at W78 Conference, Center for IT in Construction, Luleå University of Technology, Maribor, Slovenia.
direct integration of 3D de-sign and production planning of the construction work, which limits
use of the 3D models for optimization and real-time follow-up of mass haulage and machinery
logistics.This paper describes a conceptual model of an industrial process for machine guided
road construction projects where 3D design is integrated with production planning, enabling
production visualization (4D) and real-time follow-up. The aim is to create an integrated working
process to such an extent that redesign and replanning of activities and re-sources can actively be
optimized, based on observations and data collected during the production.
B-49

Söderström, P. and T. Olofsson (2007), Virtual Road Construction-A Conceptual Model, paper presented
at The 24th CIB-W78 Conference.
direct integration of 3D design and production planning of the construction work, which limits
use of the 3D models for optimization and real time follow-up of mass haulage and machinery
logistics. <div data-canvas-width="318.59257999999994" style="left: 467.297px; top:
532.333px; font-size: 16.7px; font-family: serif; transform: scale(1.01288, 1); transform-origin:
0% 0% 0px;">This paper describes a conceptual model of an industrial process for machine
guided road construction projects where 3D design is integrated with production planning,
enabling production visualization (4D) and real-time follow-up. The aim is to create an integrated
working process to such an extent that redesign and replanning of activities and resources can
actively be optimized, based on observations and data collected during the production.
Technology, T. (2008), Trimble Technology Takes on Largest Road Project in Western Australia., edited,
p. 2.
Thomas, E. Advanced Earthwork, edited, Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT).
Toines, R. (2006), Accugrade Production Study, edited.

Caterpillar conducted a production study comparing a conventional road construction project
guided by grade stakes, string lines and grade checkers with the use of AccuGrade, Caterpillar
machine control & guidance
Townes, D. (2013), Automated Machine Guidance, EXECUTIVE SUMMARYRep., 6 pp, Federal

Trimble (2002), BladePro 3D Automatic Grade Control System, Rep., 8 pp.
Vonderohe, A. (2007), Implementation of GPS Controlled Highway Construction Equipment, Final

Report Rep., Construction Materials and Support Center University of Wisconsin – Madison.
WisDOT would like to implement GPS guidance and control technology for grading equipment
on roadway projects. Implementation requires that the technology be thoroughly investigated,
specification language developed, design implementation guidance written, field inspection and
control systems developed and documented, and industry acceptance gained. WisDOT is seeking
assistance in all phases of the implementation process.
Vonderohe, A. (2008), Implementation of GPS Controlled Highway Construction Equipment Phase II,
Final Rep., University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Summary of Issues for Discussion 1. What will be WisDOT’s commitment on provision of
design-side data? Considerations include limited resources, the period of transition from CAiCE
to Civil 3D, and allotted time for making changes (e.g., some changes require more time than
B-50

others). There is an urgent need to address these and other data management issues such as
whether or not 3D modeling should be a bid item, the impact of involvement of third parties
(subcontractors for 3D modeling), and the role of the field engineer when not equipped with
necessary software. 2. What is the best means for getting other WisDOT regions involved? 3.
What effective educational mechanisms are there for WisDOT and contractor staff? 4. Will future
GPS machine guidance grading specifications include slopes and ditches or will they continue to
be confined to roadway subgrade? Are there aspects of the standard specifications that affect
grading of slopes and ditches and should be addressed for GPS machine guidance? 5. When
WisDOT goes to statewide options for bidding, will the regions have choices or will the option
apply to all contracts? 6. Is it possible to use existing section corners for horizontal control? 7.
There are problems with using last-pass data from the machines to construct as-built surfaces. For
example, data are collected whether the blade is cutting, flush with the ground, or above ground.
Also, such data can be collected only as points. No breaklines or labels can be inserted, so the
data would have to be interpreted and edited later with no information other than visual
inspection on which points should be connected to form lines. Furthermore, some “last-pass” data
have to be passed over again (for example, because of rutting). 8. The 2007 specification allows
the engineer to require conventional staking (blue tops) if GPS machine guidance is producing
unacceptable results. Should there be more flexibility for the engineer (e.g., requiring some blue
topping by choice)? Should the contractor also have the option of going to conventional staking
(e.g., equipment priorities)? 9. Are 2007 tolerances too stringent or not stringent enough?
Feedback from the projects indicated they are appropriate and should not be changed. 10. Why is
it necessary for the site calibration check points to be different from the control points used for
calibration? If the site calibration checks once, could site calibration control points be used for
future checks? Can site calibration checks be reduced to one per day? 11. What is the appropriate
number and configuration of control points for site calibration? Can the 2007 specification be
reduced? Under the 2007 specification on the Hoffman project, there were only two project
control points that could be used to check site calibrations. 12. Concerning the specified 20
subgrade check points per mile, what about divided highways? Is the specified number per lane-
mile or per linear mile? 13. Should initial staking and subgrade be separated in the specification?
14. Not all machines have GPS machine guidance, so initial staking is necessary. In addition,
subcontractors (e.g., for clearing and grubbing) might not have the technology and will need
stakes. There are mixed opinions on whether or not slope staking can be reduced to every other
station. Doing so could cause problems with, for example, topsoil stripping in non-uniform areas.
15. What are the appropriate ways for the contractor and the department to share electronic
information in proprietary formats (e.g., site calibration files). This is separate from the 3D
modeling data management issue.
Vonderohe, A., K. Brockman, G. Whited and J. Zogg (2009), Development of a Specification for GPS-
Machine-Guided Construction of Highway Subgrade - Publications Index, in Transportation Research
Board 88th Annual Meeting, edited, p. 17, Transportation Research Board 88th Annual Meeting,
Washingto DC.
Global Positioning System (GPS) machine guidance for highway construction is being rapidly
adopted by contractors due to associated large productivity gains. Seeking to support the industry
and share in benefits of this emerging technology, some state DOTs have developed or are
developing specifications for use of GPS machine guidance in construction. In 2006, the
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), embarked upon a three-year effort to
develop, pilot, refine, and implement a sub grade construction specification intended to ultimately
become a statewide option for bidding. The effort was guided by an advisory group with
representatives from WisDOT and the contracting, engineering consulting, and surveying
communities. Interviews with eight DOTs, FHWA, and private sector innovators, a literature
B-51

search, and deliberations of the advisory group led to an outline for the specification. This served
as the basis for a stakeholder workshop at which specification details were developed. Further
refinements led to a version that was piloted on two projects during the 2007 construction season.
Lessons learned from the initial pilot projects resulted in a second version used on four additional
pilot projects during 2008. The specification contains sections on GPS work plans, sharing of
GPS rovers, site calibration, positional tolerances for site calibration checks and sub grade
checks, and development and management of the necessary three-dimensional models. The new
specification will replace WisDOT’s standard specification for sub grade staking on projects that
use GPS machine guidance. Sub grade stakes (i.e., “blue tops”) are no longer required.
Wendebaum, J., J. Fliedner, B. Marx, A. Horn Moba and A. A. G. Mobile (2008), Local Positioning
Systems in Construction Basics, Limitations and Examples of Application, paper presented at 1st
machine operator carries out machine control tasks which, on the one hand require high precision,
on the other hand, however, involve frequent repetition or are highly monotone (for example
when operating along a guide wire). Furthermore, often high investments referring the outline
planning and the building measure itself are made without being able to implement the planning
data with adequate accuracy when executing or to sufficiently document the constructional
measures and a high remeasuring effort is necessary respectively. To abolish these weak points of
conventional construction, the use of positioning systems that on the one hand support and relieve
the operator respectively as well as on the other hand allow the documentation of the executed
tasks is a precondition. In the following several positioning possibilities and applications are
described in an overview.
Xu, Q. and G. K. Chang (2012), Evaluation of intelligent compaction for asphalt materials*, Automation
in Construction, 30, 104-112, doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.11.015.
This paper aims to evaluate the effectiveness of IC technology for the asphalt compaction. A
framework of field construction and in-situ test control using IC technology was presented and
implemented in one engineering project. A computer-aided data analysis method was proposed
and implemented, including the univariate and geo-statistics, compaction curve and uniformity.
Results show that IC technology can effectively improve the roller patter to achieve more uniform
compaction, and the compaction curve identifies the optimum roller pass to help avoid under/over
compaction. The trend of Sakai Compaction Control Value (CCV) – a relative index of material
stiffness – is consistent with CCV from mapping the underlying subbase layer. This indicates the
reflecting effect of underneath layers on upper layers. CCVs from asphalt compaction have a
linear relationship with the light-weight-deflectometer moduli of subbase. The compaction
uniformity trends indicated by univariate statistics are consistent with that indicated by
semivariograms for this case study.
Highlights► We proposed a data analysis method and implemented in developed software. ►
Construction control framework for IC on asphalt is discussed for industry practice. ► The
effectiveness of IC technology for asphalt materials is evaluated. ► The compaction curve
identifies optimum roller pass to help improve compaction. ► Semivariogram and COV attain
consistent trends for compaction uniformity.
AUTOMATION
Remote Sensing Based
"GPS Machine Control Systems." from http://www.gpsandmachinecontrol.com/.
B-52

A brief overview of some of the benefits GPS provides include: 1. Accurate Grade:If all machines
on site are GPS enabled, they simply run all day long, ACCURATELY, even with rookie drivers
in the cockpit. The accuracy of the equipment ensures grade within tolerances, on the first pass,
reducing work time, eliminating mid job survey crews, bumped stakes, and the like. 2. Job
Management: Continual, accurate, and complete jobsite information reduces the strain of
managers, superintendents, and billing departments, as the proof is readily available for any
discussion arising from the job. 3. Data Management:Automated Reports, daily reports, and other
data reports are generated by GPS Machine Control systems on a routine basis. These reports, are
archived and distributed to all of the branches of your business to aid in work flow. 4. Billing
Departments:The billing department of your company has a perfect paper trail to prove activities
completed, amount of material moved, and much more. Never have an argument or pay for their
dirt again.
"GPS-Enabled Land Development Tools." from http://www.toolbase.org/Technology-

Inventory/Sitework/gps-tools.
Much more than directions and roadmaps, an integrated GPS system is now available for land
development. To facilitate grading of large areas, GPS-controlled earthmoving equipment
including bulldozers, backhoes, road graders, excavators and compactors can greatly increase
productivity during the land development process. This approach significantly reduces the labor
needed for laying out grade stakes and reduces the amount of earth that is being moved more than
one time. The sytem consists of two major components, a digital three-dimensional model for the
grade information (3-D site plan) and earthmoving equipment that has been fitted with automatic
computer-operated controls on the cutting surface (machine blade).
(2003), Operating Strategies*, Engineering & Mining Journal (00958948), 204(4), 32.
Reports on BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance's (BMA) installation of a Leica Dozer 2000
satellite-based machine guidance technology at the Blackwater coal mine in Queensland. Use of
signals from the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites to pinpoint the position of the
bulldozer; Success of the initial trial of the Dozer 2000; System capabilities.
(2004), Laing Contractors invest in Gradestar GradeStar 1.

machine control from Leica Geosystems to deliver engineering value and provide greater job site
accuracy. The GradeStar machine control system, based on the robotic TPS1100 Total Stations
series, was installed on a Cat 12G grader over an existing Sonicmaster system. This 3D machine
control system enables grader operators to complete grading work in a shorter amount of time,
more efficiently and with greater accuracy.
(2008), "Rocky Mountain Lasers." Retrieved 10/29, 2013, from

Brown, C. (2008), GPS and Related Topics, in Construction Engineers' Conference 2008, edited.
This presentation discusses GPS for stake out and auotomated machine grading.
Clarke-Hackston, N., M. Messing and E. Ullrich (2008), Geodetic Instrumentation for Use on Machine
Bored Tunnels, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance 2008,
2008.
As advance rates of TBM bored tunnels increase, it is essential that all aspects of the control of
the machine and the tunnel support are able to operate at the desired rate. This paper describes the
B-53

innovative ways that the basic guidance system has been adapted to cater for the TBM’s that are
currently in use used on the Gotthard tunnel where the traditional line of sight throughout the
backup gear is continuously obstructed due to the use of a sprayed concrete support facility to the
use. The guidance system utilizes features from the well proven system for distance and curved
pipejacking applications where the main reference is attached to the moving pipe (tunnel lining).
Accurate steering of the tunnelling machine is essential if the segmental lining is to be efficiently
installed. The use of ring sequencing software for the determination of the ring type and rotation,
significantly aids the rapid placement of the most appropriate ring, which in turn can be
monitored for any immediate convergence with the innovative chained inclinometer convergence
measurement system. All of this information together with the surface mapping, geotechnical,
and surface monitoring data bases can be fully integrated with the monitoring of the machines
operating parameters in the Controlled Boring Process software integration package to give the
machine operator a complete graphical display of all that is happening around him, to ensure
optimum control and speed of safe advance.
Garget, D. (2005), Testing of Robotic Total Stations For Dynamic Tracking, Dissertation thesis,
University of Southern Queensland.
Robotic Total Stations (RTSs) were first introduced by Geodimeter in 1990. These instruments
incorporated servomotors and advanced tracking sensor’s which allowed the instrument to track a
target. This development meant that with the use of a radio link, the instrument could now be
completely controlled via remote by a single operator. Automated machine guidance was the
major new application of this advancement in technology. RTS’s are now utilised in the
construction and extractive industries for the guidance of major earthworks machinery as well as
in the agricultural industry for the guidance of machinery such as tractors and harvesters.
However, the accuracy and latency of this dynamic application is still not well understood.
Therefore, with the application of RTS’s now moving into real-time automated machine guidance
it has become critical to understand the exact accuracies that these instruments are capable of
achieving whilst operating in the dynamic tracking mode. Thus, upon the completion of this
project my aim is to have a better understanding of both the dynamic tracking operational
accuracies of several instruments, as well as a better understanding of under what conditions an
RTS best performs.
Geosystems, L. (2004), High precision railway ballast construction, in Gradestar TPS machine control
system, edited, p. 1.
In early November 2003, the first fully automated GradeStar-TPS 3D Dozer control system in
Europe was installed at the Hydrex site in West Drayton, UK. The GradeStar machine control
system, based on the robotic TPS1100 Total Stations series, was installed on a Komatsu D41 P-
6 dozer together with Leica Geosystems ProControl (the core 1D/2D/3D hydraulic control
system). This 3D machine control system enables dozer operators to complete grading work in a
shorter amount of time, more efficiently and with greater accuracy.
Grenzdörffer, G. and C. Donath (2008), Generation and Analysis of Digital Terrain Models with Parallel
Guidance Systems for Precision Agriculture, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine
In Europe more than 10.000 dual frequency iTC Starfire GPS-receivers were sold in recent years.
These GPS-receivers are mainly used for parallel tracking and autosteering of modern tractors
and combine harvesters. The recorded GPS-data also includes precise height information which
can be used for the generation of high accuracy digital terrain models at no or little additional
cost. In the paper the achievable data accuracy under different conditions are investigated. The
B-54

different steps for data preparation and digital terrain models DTM generation are described.
Additionally several applications of high accuracy DTM’s in (precision) agriculture are
highlighted.
Grimm, D. E. (2008), GNSS Orientation for kinematic applications, paper presented at 1st International
GNSS systems are a well established technique for guiding machines or the machine’s operator
along predefined routes. Such GNSS applications have been successfully integrated into the
design of construction machines and farming equipment. While a GNSS-equipped machine
moves straight ahead conventional GNSS systems with only one antenna show good
performance. However, the system reaches its limits when the machine turns on its own axis,
such as an excavator does. This causes the GNSS receiver to be unable to determine its bearing,
as a compass could do. A common single-antenna GNSS receiver can only estimate its moving
direction (heading) using previous positions. Since a turn around its own axis does not change the
coordinates, but changes the orientation of the machine, the orientation can not be calculated by
this means. A common solution to this problem is the implementation of two GNSS antennas.
Two antennas allow the bearing of the baseline between the antennas to be defined. A new
approach with only one antenna required is under development at the ETH Zurich. This new
system uses the satellite positions as a reference for orientation. For that purpose the direction of
each satellite’s signal has to be known in relation to the antenna. In order to obtain orientation the
signal strength of each satellite is measured. A well defined shading of the received signals allows
estimating the required orientation. After full implementation of our approach, the second GNSS
antenna found on most construction machines will not be required anymore.
Hannon, J. J. (2007), NCHRP Synthesis 372 Emerging Technologies for Construction Delivery, Rep.
978-0-309-09791-8, Transportation Research Board.
B-55

Juretzko, M. and M. Hennes (2008), Monitoring of the spatiotemporal movement of an industrial robot
using a laser tracker, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance
2008, 2008.
The project introduced here describes the geometric inspection of an innovative robot-based
production process for spatially curved extruded profiles. The aim was to prove that the
trajectories fulfil a given spatiotemporal tolerance level with respect to repeatability and absolute
accuracy using an independent, i.e. geodetic, measurement method. In order to inspect this
motion regarding spatiotemporal tolerance, it is necessary to synchronize a laser tracker with the
control system of the robot with an order of magnitude of micro seconds. This resolution has been
achieved by triggered measurements with a Leica LTD500. Very specific and for the production
process decisive deviations of the robot trajectory have been detected as well as an extraordinarily
high kinematic repeatability of the robot.
Maunder, D. (2007), An Investigation into the Establishment of a Continuously Operating GPS Reference
Station at Dubbo City Council, Central West Nsw, Dissertation thesis, 1-75 pp, University of Southern
Queensland.
Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), real time differential correction techniques,
Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) networks, mobile internet and GNSS user
equipment are now mature technologies. The challenge is to manage the combination of these
technologies to fully benefit users and society. The aim of this project was the investigation into
the feasibility of establishment of a CORS site, servicing the requirements of Dubbo City
Council, and surrounding geographical area,where this functionality does not currently exist. For
a State (and National) CORS network coverage that will provide at least Real Timepositional
applications, then these sites must be located relative to regional population centers, and that an
optimal location, particularly for NSW, is the Local Government Organisation in that regional
centre. This project will focus on the validation of establishing such a model, particularly for
current users of spatial technology, and as such the Council of the City of Dubbo will be both a
case study for a similar exercise into other regions of the State of NSW, and perhaps nationally.
Dubbo City Council will also be the sponsor of the project, and as such, a questionnaire will be
used to validate the process. Typical users and generators of spatial technology in the area, and
including representatives of other Local Government organisations, State based Road and Traffic
authorities, Agriculture and Precision farming, and consulting surveyors, shall be invited to
participate in a questionnaire to gauge the level of interest and potential commitment to the
establishment of enhanced GNSS functionality for this particular location. The questionnaire of
local spatial industry representatives was compared to other industry professional literature and
similar academic exercises. Pertinent aspects of the questionnaire were highlighted and the salient
points contributed to the preparation of a validating business case for the proposed model.
Mautz, R. (2008), Combination of Indoor and Outdoor Positioning, paper presented at 1st International
Indoor and outdoor environments create contradictory conditions for positioning and guidance of
machines. While indoor environments are limited in size to rooms and buildings, outdoor
positioning capabilities require regional or even global coverage. Secondly, the difficulty of
receipting satellite signals indoors has triggered development of high sensitive and AGNSS
receivers – with many issues remaining unsolved. Thirdly, the accuracy requirements are
dissimilar between indoor and outdoor environments – typically there is a higher demand for
B-56

relative accuracy indoors. This paper should be regarded as an overview of the current and near
future positioning capabilities for indoor and outdoor environments. However, it does not lay
claim to completeness. Focus is given on GNSS and various novel position systems that achieve
cm-level accuracy or better which is a requirement for most applications in machine control and
guidance of construction machines.
Maynard, K. L. and J. M. Janky (2000), MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS LASER REFERENCE

CONTROL SYSTEM FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT*, edited by U. S. Patent, p. 11, Trimble
Navigation Limited, United States.
A number of laser beam stations emit vertically separated parallel planes and/or ray-planes of
laser light that can be discriminated by their respective plane elevations, modulation of the laser
light, time synchronizing, etc. Identifying the laser plane Would also imply an identi?cation of the
source laser beam station, and thus a precise indication of the elevation at the point of optical
intercept. Alternatively, a single laser beam station is used that can emit several different
monochromatic color planes and/or ray-planes of laser light. Monochromatic laser diodes, for
example, are used for point-light sources and rotating or on-end conical mirrors are used to
convert the diode laser light to the required monochromatic color planes and/or ray-planes of
laser light. Receivers, generally held on masts attached to motor grader, bulldozer, loader, and
excavator machines are used to sense the vertical reference position of the mono chromatic color
planes and/or ray-planes of laser light, relative to the earth cutting blade of the machine. Fixed
color ?lters, color ?lter Wheels, and/or linear array photo detectors are used to discriminate
amongst the colors and to exactly sense the plane of intersection With the machine. The results of
the sensing are either displayed to an equipment operator for manual adjustment of the blade to an
automatic servo control system connected to hydraulically control the blade.
Nayllor, N. (2006), Development of A Low Cost GPS Guidance System for use in Agriculture,
Dissertation thesis, University of Southern Queensland.
This project developed an accurate, cost e®ective GPS guidance system and developed
conceptual designs of a hands-free guidance interface for use in the agricultural sector. The
guidance system utilised two Garmin GPS 18-5 receivers to provide position data at a rate of
5Hz. The guidance system was built upon a previous incarnation that utilised Garmin GPS 35
receivers providing position data at a rate of 1Hz. The guidance system currently uses an
indicating arrow on a computer screen to provide guidance information to operators. The
accuracy with which the guidance system could guide an operator in a straight line up a paddock
was quanti¯ed by monitoring the path followed by the operators machine out and back along a
de¯ned trajectory and then compared to current industry standards. The accuracy of the guidance
system to guide an operator along parallel paths o®set a distance from each other was also
quanti¯ed. The ability for the software to o®set over di®erent distances was also determined. The
information collected and conclusions drawn will be used to quantify the accuracy of the
guidance system as a whole for agricultural applications. It is hoped that the conceptual designs
for the hands-free guidance interface will be used to develop a working prototype and be tested
with the guidance system in the near future.
Noack, P. O. and T. Muhr (2008), Integrated Controls for Agricultural Applications – GNSS Enabling a
New Level in Precision Farming, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control &
Guidance 2008, 2008.
Naturally, most agricultural operations are undertaken in the space domain and are embedded in
an environment that is subject to change and variability. Both, human actions such as cultivation
and fertilization and natural factors such as weather and soil properties continuously influence
B-57

and change the environment for plant and animal production. Hence, appropriate information on
current and preceding states of this environment and the knowledge about actions taken in the
past is important for decision making and planning future operations in order to maximize yield
while minimising the ecological impact. The need to optimise food production also introduces the
challenge to reduce the cost for labour and mineral fuels and thus to minimize the operation hour
of machinery in the field to the minimum required. GNSS sensors have introduced the capability
to record human actions and the variability of spatial structures in plant and animal production in
the time and in the space domain. They also enhance the exact control of tractors and implements
dependant on their position. Over the last 20 years GNSS technology has helped to establish tools
which help to increase the productivity in agriculture substantially.
O'Connor, M. L., G. H. Elkaim and B. W. Parkinson (1995), Kinematic GPS for Closed-Loop Control of
Farm and Construction Vehicles, in ION GPS-95, edited, p. 8, Palm Springs, CA.
Operating heavy equipment can be a difficult and very tedious task; control of an agricultural
tractor requires the continuos attention of the driver, and farmers often work long hours during
the critical times of planting and harvesting. Loaders and other ground vehicles are frequently
used in situations which are unpleasant or even hazardous for the human operator. In the past,
some efforts have been made to automate agricultural vehicles, but they have been largely
unsuccessful due to sensor limitations.
This paper explores the use of kinematic GPS as the primary sensor in closed loop control of farm
and construction vehicles. A single, low-cost GPS receiver can measure position to within a few
centimeters and attitude to within 0.1 degrees, and does not drift with time. The ability to provide
accurate information about multiple vehicle states makes GPS ideal for system identification and
control of dynamic systems. In this work, a ground vehicle control system was designed and
simulated using realistic plant, sensor, and disturbance models. Optimal control methods were
examined to deal with non-linear and time-varying vehicle dynamics. To validate this simulation,
experimental data was taken at Stanford using a GPS-equipped electric golf cart.
This research builds upon previous work in developing GPS-based aircraft autopilots. It is
significant because it is the first step towards a safe, low-cost system for adaptive, highly accurate
control of a ground vehicle. It is anticipated that the implementation of these ideas will take place
in three steps: (1) driver-in-the-loop control using a graphical display; (2) driver assisted
automatic control, with an on-board operator making only high-level decisions; and (3) vehicle
autonomous guidance and control with on-line parameter identification and adaptive control that
will operate for several hours without human intervention
Petschko, H. (2008), Universal Developer Platform for Machine Control Applications, paper presented at
1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance 2008, 2008.
Over the last two decades terrestrial and global 3D measurement sensors in the field of
engineering geodesy have seen a significant upturn. With modern measurement techniques, a 3D
trajectory of a moving object can be determined within a few centimetres of accuracy (GNSS).
Under certain circumstances and with accuracies of within five to ten millimetres can be achieved
(tracking total station). Additional sensors are rotation ring laser, orientation sensors, INS, or
inclination sensors. New application areas have now been created in the fields of construction,
mining and agriculture. The basic similarities between the applications in the above mentioned
fields imply the development of a versatile and easily adaptable hardware and software platform.
Furthermore 1D, 2D or 3D guidance or control of complex machinery generally includes heavy
and diverse computational work and sophisticated user interaction. This suggests the use of
embedded versions of general purpose computers and operating systems. The company MOBA is
developing a Machine Control Platform which is intended to be the basis for solutions mainly in
construction. Since many of the tasks in machine control are comparable to tasks in general
B-58

robotics, this platform is based on a robotic framework which is available for several OS and
which is publicly accessible. This framework, called The ViViVerse (the vivid universe), shall
enable quick development of applications that read in sensor data, deduce actions based on built
in rules and finally control actuators. Additionally communication between single units is one of
the main goals. Information is given about common tasks in building machine control
applications, like performance considerations and usability in a rough working environment. A
second point will be the features and implementation of the ViViVerse framework.
Rader, E. (2008), GPS-based 3D-Monitoring in Surface Mining, paper presented at 1st International
RMR has developed a software called GeoCAD-OP for GPS-based machine guidance for
wheelexcavators, spreaders and compactors. The 3D-real-time animated software is always
divided in a machine and an office application, latter can be used as a control station for any kind
of machine.
Retcher, G. (2002), Multi-Sensor Systems for Machine Guidance and Control, 2002/04/19/26.
New developments in construction industry in recent years have led to an increase in productivity
of construction works and corresponding cost savings. Starting from a classification of machinery
employed for road and railway construction, suitable systems and sensors have to be assigned to
solve a specific task. In modern systems for construction machine guidance, multi-sensor systems
are employed that consists usually of a 3-D surveying system, i.e., either RTK GPS or total
stations with automatic targeting and tracking, and additional sensors, e.g., electronic
inclinometers, gyro compass, etc. In a comparison with conventional systems, their main
advantages and disadvantages and major applications are highlighted.For guidance of the
machine along the defined path, the position and orientation of the machine in a 3-D coordinate
system, e.g., the coordinate system of the construction site, has to be determined continuously in
real-time. This problem can be solved by defining a socalled machine coordinate system (or body
frame) that is embedded in the machine or machine blades. Then the orientation and rotation of
the frame in 3-D space are described by three attitude parameters. The position and attitude
parameters are obtained in the evaluation process from the observation of all sensors of the multi-
sensor system. A modified approach based on optimal linear estimation methods (Kalman and
Wiener filter) for the determination of the machine blade movements will be discussed and
analysed briefly.
Sadler, D. Automated Machine Guidance GPS and Machine Controls that can Assist in Construction
Accuracies and Efficiences, in 2009 FDOT/FTBA Construction Conference, edited.
GPS applications, benefits, and advantages in the industry.
Stempfhuber, W. (2006), 1d and 3d Systems in Machine Automation, 2006/05/22/24.

Over the past 15 years, kinematic measurements in the area of Engineering Geodesy have seen a
significant upturn. Around 1990 the first automatic tracking total station Geodimeter 4000
[Hennes, 1992]) was developed, also around this time the first GPS receivers became
commercially available. After a short period it became clear that terrestrial and global surveying
instruments could be used for tracking the trajectory of a moving object [Stempfhuber, 2001].
During this period the first machine control systems began to be used on construction sites. In the
middle of the 90’s various companies attempted to control the kinematic processes for paving and
finishing operations (e.g. stringless 3D slipform paving www.wirtgen.de/de/darchiv/). In the
following years the first prototypes of such a control system upgraded the conventional
“stringline” method with “stringless technology”. Today there is a large range of potential
B-59

markets for new machine automation applications, which will lead to the development of a range
of new products in the tunnelling, construction, mining and agricultural industries. The use of
machine automation in these applications will alter the workflow of data collection, data
processing, creating designs, uploading and transforming data, controlling machines without
stringlines, checking the as-constructed output of the operation and documenting these results.
This needs a completely different approach to that which is currently used today.
Sturm, A. (2008), New Technologies for Telematics and Machine Control, paper presented at 1st
Vonderohe, A. (2007), Implementation of GPS Controlled Highway Construction Equipment, Final

Report Rep., Construction Materials and Support Center University of Wisconsin – Madison.
WisDOT would like to implement GPS guidance and control technology for grading equipment
on roadway projects. Implementation requires that the technology be thoroughly investigated,
specification language developed, design implementation guidance written, field inspection and
control systems developed and documented, and industry acceptance gained. WisDOT is seeking
assistance in all phases of the implementation process.
Response Analysis Based
Briaud, J.-L. and J. Seo (2003), Intelligent compaction: overview and research needs, Report to the
Federal Highway Administration.
Intelligent Compaction is achieved by a smooth drum vibratory roller with a measurement/control
system. This measurement system uses the information collected to adapt the equipment
performance continuously, to optimize compaction and meet required conditions. This system
controls the different compaction parameters for the roller such as: drum vibration, amplitude,
frequency and working roller speed (impact distance). The output parameter is a soil modulus
which is calculated continuously on the basis of the monitored drum acceleration.
Chang, G., Q. Xu, J. Rutledge, B. Horan, L. Michael, D. White and P. Vennapusa (2011), Accelerated
Implementation of Intelligent Compaction Technology for Embankment Subgrade Soils, Aggregate Base,
And Asphalt Pavement Materials-Final Report, 275 pp.
Intelligent compaction (IC) is an emerging technology, and for some applications it is mature
enough for implementation in field compaction of pavement materials. The intent of this project
is to realize the blueprint in the FHWA IC strategic plan. This study was under the Transportation
Pooled Fund project, TPF-5(128), which includes 12 participating state department of
transportation: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North
Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin.
This document is the final report for this pooled fund IC project.
Xu, Q. and G. K. Chang (2012), Evaluation of intelligent compaction for asphalt materials*, Automation
in Construction, 30, 104-112, doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.11.015.
This paper aims to evaluate the effectiveness of IC technology for the asphalt compaction. A
framework of field construction and in-situ test control using IC technology was presented and
implemented in one engineering project. A computer-aided data analysis method was proposed
and implemented, including the univariate and geo-statistics, compaction curve and uniformity.
Results show that IC technology can effectively improve the roller patter to achieve more uniform
compaction, and the compaction curve identifies the optimum roller pass to help avoid under/over
B-60

compaction. The trend of Sakai Compaction Control Value (CCV) – a relative index of material
stiffness – is consistent with CCV from mapping the underlying subbase layer. This indicates the
reflecting effect of underneath layers on upper layers. CCVs from asphalt compaction have a
linear relationship with the light-weight-deflectometer moduli of subbase. The compaction
uniformity trends indicated by univariate statistics are consistent with that indicated by
semivariograms for this case study.
Highlights► We proposed a data analysis method and implemented in developed software. ►
Construction control framework for IC on asphalt is discussed for industry practice. ► The
effectiveness of IC technology for asphalt materials is evaluated. ► The compaction curve
identifies optimum roller pass to help improve compaction. ► Semivariogram and COV attain
consistent trends for compaction uniformity.
Others
"AGPS Inc.- Advanced Geo Positioning Solutions Inc.". from http://www.agpsinc.com/
"Automated Positioning Systems (APS)." Retrieved 10/28, 2013, from http://www.apsmining.com/.
Global Awarded NZ's Largest Machine Control Project, in Global Online, edited.
"Machine Control Online - Advancing the Positioning Industry - Home." Retrieved 10/29, 2013, from
http://machinecontrolonline.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/.
MachineControlOnline.com will offer manufacturers, OEMs and customers one-stop platform for
all things positioning – technology, trends, productivity gains, and more.
(2003), Australian Mine Pioneers New Satellite-Based Machine Guidance Technology, Engineering and
Mining Journal (April).
(2008), Insite: The Construction newsletter from KOREC, edited, KOREC.

Over 250 visitors to KOREC’s first ever Trimble Construction LIVE event
(2009), "Machine Control Blog 09." Machine Control Blog 09. Retrieved 10/23/2013, 2013, from
http://blog.machinecontrolonline.com/?m=200908.
IAARC. (2013). "International Association for Automation and Robotics in Construction (IAARC)."
Retrieved 25/10, 2013, from http://www.iaarc.org/index.html.
AASHTO (2007), AASHTO TIG Lead States Team Marketing Plan for AUTOMATED MACHINE
GUIDANCE, 17 pp.
Adams, T. M., N. Koncz and A. P. Vonderohe (2000), Functional requirements for a comprehensive
transportation location referencing system, paper presented at Proceedings of the North American Travel
Monitoring Exhibition and Conference.
Transportation agencies manage data that is referenced in one, two, three, and four dimensions.
Location referencing system (LRS) data models vary across transportation agencies and often
within organizations as well. This has resulted in failed attempts and abandoned efforts to
interoperate business functions and / or integrate data. A number of transportation agencies,
B-61

through recognition of the significance of spatially-referenced information to their operations,

have identified the need for comprehensive management of location referencing.
What is lacking is a clear set of functional requirements for a comprehensive location referencing
system. Detailed functional requirements and a comprehensive data model are necessary so
transportation agencies can implement improved transportation information systems and
advanced GIS-T technology.
Linearly-referenced data constitutes the majority of data managed by transportation agencies.
However, agencies are now using GPS technology for applications ranging from highway
inventory to incident management. Much more detail is needed on functional requirements for
data in higher dimensions and for integration across dimensions. This paper reviews the
functional requirements for a comprehensive spatial / temporal referencing system that were
identified by a workshop of stakeholders in asset management, highway operations, traffic
management, and transit.
Among the requirements identified by the stakeholders is that a comprehensive LRS data model
supports temporal referencing. Temporal aspects of transportation data impact applications
ranging from pavement management (for historical records) to transit (for arrival times), to
commercial vehicle operations (for vehicle tracking), to congestion management (for dynamic
network modeling).
Utah DOT. (2012), 3D Modeling for Construction.
Akin, K. (2009), Bringing Machine Control to California DOT (Caltrans) Construction Projects, in 2009
TRB 88th Annual Meeting, edited, Washington, D.C.
Alkhatib, H., I. Neumann, H. Neuner and H. Kutterer (2008), Comparison of Sequential Monte Carlo
Filtering with Kalman Filtering for Nonlinear State Estimation, paper presented at 1st International
In this paper different filtering techniques for nonlinear state estimation are explored and
compared. We distinguish between approaches that approximate the nonlinear function (extended
Kalman filter) and other approaches approximating the distribution of measurements and state
(unscented Kalman filter and sequential Monte Carlo filter). The paper is showing both, the
algorithms and simulated examples where a vehicle moves along a nonlinear trajectory such as a
circle arc or a clothoid. It is shown, that the estimation of the system state can be improved if the
nonlinearities were taken into account.
B-62

Barnes, J., C. Rizos, M. Kanli, D. Small, G. Voigt, N. Gambale, J. Lamance, T. Nunan and C. Reid
(2004), Indoor Industrial Machine Guidance Using Locata: A Pilot Study at Bluescope Steel, paper
presented at 60th Annual Meeting of the US Inst. Of Navigation, The University of New South Wales,
Australia, 2004.
Locata Corporation has invented a new positioning technology called Locata, for precision
positioning both indoors and outside. Using a network of timesynchronised transceivers, point-
positioning with cm-level precision can be achieved. In this paper the feasibility of Locata for
industrial machine guidance is demonstrated through a trial at the BlueScope steelworks. In the
trial the Locata technology is used to track a crane within the slab handling yard. By comparing
Locata position solutions with ‘truth’ positions derived using a total station (theodolite and
electronic distance measurement) instrument, it is shown that cm-level positioning can be
achieved in a severe multipath indoor environment.
Barrett, L. Evolution of Automated Machine Guidance (amg) at the Dots, edited.

This presentaiton discussed how Minnesota's Department of Transportation evoloved in the area
of Automated Machine Guidance.
Beetz, A. and V. Schwieger (2008), Integration of Controllers for Filter Algorithms for Construction
Machine Guidance, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance
2008, 2008.
In the past years the Institute for Applications of Geodesy to Engineering has developed a
hardware in- the-loop simulator for guiding and controlling of construction machines. This
simulator consists of a tachymeter (Leica© TCRP 1201) for measurement of positions, a model
truck (scale 1:14) as construction machine, a remote control connected to a PC over digital
analogue converter and LabVIEW© as application development system. In the meantime it is
possible to test different controllers in real time together with a Kalman Filter which is used to
reduce noise of measurement data. The controllers can be changed any time during the drive. The
same is valid for the activation of the Kalman filter. To compare quality of the controllers (P, PI,
PID, 3-Point-Controller) the root mean square (RMS) was calculated using the lateral deviation.
The RMS reached values between 2-3 mm.
Brown, L. (2008), People Moving People, Automated Machine Control: Moving Road Construction and
Its People More Efficiently, edited.
Conolly, N. (2001), Technology Leads the Major Players into the Field of Machine Guidance, in M&M,
edited.
Dillingham, J., T. Jensen and N. Schulist (2007), Best Practices – Machine Control Evaluation, Final
Rep., 154 pp, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Shortly after 3D Machine Control Systems were introduced, Mn/DOT began an initiative
program within the agency to investigate the technology. Late in 2006, Mn/DOT selected Alliant
Engineering, Inc, to conduct an evaluation of the current machine control program and develop
recommendations for furthering the use of the technology throughout the State of Minnesota. 3D
Machine Control technology spans several functional groups within Mn/DOT Program Delivery
Area and affects all stakeholders, public and private, involved throughout a project’s life cycle.
Many of these stakeholders have differing opinions on how to propagate the use of the
technology to benefit all stakeholders and the traveling public. The project was split into two
separate research phases. The first phase focused on conducting a literature research of 3D
B-63

Machine Control technology, available systems and the future applications for the system. The
second phase of the project consisted of gathering input from stakeholders through the
preparation and administration of a survey and in-person interviews. The results from these two
phases were used to identify issues limiting the increased use of the technology and formulating
recommendations to meet the agency’s goal of increasing the use of machine control technology.
Engel, T., J. J. Stuby, C. Glauser, P. Güldenapfel, M. Manhart, G. Schelling and H. Ingensand (2008),
Automatic Guidance of Track Laying Machines with Respect to Coordinate Systems, paper presented at
1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance 2008, 2008.
After a short explanation of the principles of the automatic track laying machine guidance, this
text focuses on presenting and solving three challenges without which coordinate based track
machine guidance would hardly have become working at a reasonable, justifiable economic level
at long term view. The whole development of the method relies on an informatics development
very close to the users, which did not impede it to realise spectacular progresses at conceptual
level with a quasi errorless track data management since more than ten years. This text also
serves to support the putting into practice of the leaflet 728R, adopted by the UIC infrastructure
forum in 2006.
Gary Pruitt and C. E. Fly (2008), NDGPS Assessment Final ReportRep., US Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
The specific objective of this report is to present the results of an assessment of the Nationwide
Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS) system.
Group, A. T. I. (2007), AMG: Automated Machine Guidance, edited, p. 8.

Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) links sophisticated software with construction equipment
to direct the operation of machinery with a high level of precision, improving the speed and
accuracy of highway construction processes. Because it eliminates much of the guesswork,
skilled manual control, and labor involved in traditional methods, AMG improves worker safety
and saves agencies and contractors time and money – enhancing their ability to deliver highways
“better, faster, and cheaper.”
Hahn, P. (2009), "2009 August Machine Control Blog." from

http://blog.machinecontrolonline.com/?p=350.
I recently had the opportunity to speak at a committee meeting of the Transportation Research
Board (TRB), near my home in Colorado. This committee is very focused on construction
machine control, which they refer to as Automated Machine Guidance (AMG). Next month I will
write about the positions the state Departments of Transportation are talking regarding AMG and
its adoption by the contracting community. The future support they will provide and what
mandates they may impose on contractors are still under discussion, however it is already clear
that the majoriity of DOT’s see significant benefits to the public and are in favor of AMG use on
their transportation projects. If this topic interests you, you can get a head start by reading the
document that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Technology Implementation Group (TIG) has published. (Sorry about all the
acronyms but we are dealing with government agencies and it comes with the turf.) The
publication is titled “Advancing Safer, Faster, More Accurate, and Less Expensive Roadway
Construction”. To access this publication use the
Hampton, T. (2006), Awards of Excellence, in Engineering News Record, edited.
B-64

Dwayne McAninch, Iowa’s largest earthmoving contractor, risked millions on digital controls
and pushed an industry into the future
Heikkilä, R. and M. Jaakkola (2003), The Efficiency of a 3-D Blade Control System in the Construction
of Structure Layers by Road Grader – Automated Design-Build of Road Construction in Finland, NIST
SPECIAL PUBLICATION SP, 475-480.
The paper reports on the research work in the domain of automated road construction. A new
method and prototype of automated road grader has been developed in Finland. The working
experiments show measurable influence and quality as well as economic profit to be achieved by
the new technology.
Heikkilä, R., T. A. Lasky and K. Akin (2009), Construction Automation Process Development -
Advancing the Collaboration between Finland and California, paper presented at 26th International
Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2009), Austin TX, U.S.A., 2009.
This paper presents the total process model of automation for construction and maintenance, with
a focus on roads and bridges. This multi-phase model includes: initial measurements, product
modeling and design, construction control and machine guidance, waulity assurance and control,
and lifecyle operations and maintenance. The paper then provides detailed discussion of current
applied research results from Finland and California. The paper gives a summary of the key
findings of Finland and California, noting areas of commonality and areas for further
investigation. Finally, the paper presents plans for further collaborative research between the
University of Oulu and the University of California-Davis.
Inglis, R. (2006), Evaluation of VRS-RTK GPS Latency in a Dynamic Environment, Dissertation thesis,
70 pp, University of Southern Queensland.
This research project investigates the effects of latency in dynamic GPS (Global Positioning
System) measurements made within a Virtual Reference Station (VRS) – Real Time Kinematic
(RTK) network. The test method, which has been devised as an integral part of this research,
allows for determination of the effects of latency in low speed dynamic VRS measurements. The
method utilises a utility vehicle as a dynamic platform for testing, with a barcode reader attached
to the vehicle to read barcodes which have been fixed to posts adjacent to the test path. Mounted
in vertical alignment with the reader is the GPS antenna, providing the GPS signals to allow the
GPS receiver(s) on board to determine the position of the vehicle as it passes the fixed barcodes
and thereby providing a fixed frame of reference for the measurement of latency. Measuring lines
in each direction and comparing the apparent position of the barcodes allows for the
determination of latency. Conducting the testing procedure over a range of speeds will also
facilitate the investigation of the relationship between platform speed and latency error. The
results of this research have implications for any machine guidance and precision agriculture
applications intending to use the VRS network where data accuracy is a major consideration. If
the latency present in the positioning system has been quantified, it becomes possible to correct
for this position error in real time. The research has only considered the effects of latency on the
position solution, and this should be distinguished from accuracy. The accuracy of the VRS
system in dynamic applications has not been investigated as part of this research project, but
should also be considered in conjunction with latency when investigating the suitability of VRS
to potential applications, dynamic or static.
Kebede, T. T. (2008), Development and Implementation of Filter Algorithms and Controllers to a

Construction Machine Simulator, Royal Institute of Technology.
B-65

Different geodetic techniques can be integrated in construction processes to have effective, time
saving and cost minimizing construction through geometric control and guidance of the
construction machines on the designed alignment. This can be achieved by integrating a
tachymeter as kinematic positioning sensor. The institute of application of geodesy to engineering
(IAGB) of University of Stuttgart has developed a modular position guidance toolbox (a
construction machine simulator) that comprises a model truck of scale 1:14, of Leica TPS1201
tachymeter, remote controller and a computer. Tachymeters can work as kinematic measuring
devices by integrating them to a construction process, in real time, using automatic closed-loop
control systems with feedbacks. The geometric deviation between the measured and given
trajectories can be minimized to some optimized limit using different types of controllers. With
P-I-D controllers a better accuracy can be achieved, and with integration of Kalman filter to the
control system the controller quality can be improved. It is also possible to account for the
dynamic effect on the model truck at higher velocities; however, the accuracy is very small due to
some practical working limitations of tachymeter (such as low scanning rate and dead time) as
kinematic position sensor at higher velocities.
Kellar, W., P. Roberts and O. Zelzer (2008), A Self Calibrating Attitude Determination System for
Precision Farming using Multiple Low-Cost Complementary Sensors, paper presented at 1st International
A low cost three axis attitude determination system for moving platforms has been developed by
Leica Geosystems that requires a minimal calibration procedure, and has the ability to self-
calibrate for the various biases caused by temperature variation and mounting misalignment.
Sensor fusion techniques are used to combine the data from a high quality survey grade GNSS
receiver with additional cost effective high performance inertial sensors to produce a high rate of
attitude data with low noise and low bias in the form of an attitude sensor module for machine
control and guidance applications. The sensor module has been successfully integrated into a
tractor steering system for precision farming. This paper demonstrates the minimal installation
and calibration procedures for the system, and presents the results from benchmarking the system
in real farm operating conditions.
Kerville, P. (2007), Cat Proves the Point, with AccuGrade, in Kerville's MovingDirt Magazine, edited.
This article talks about a text that Cat did in Spain that demonstrates beyond any doubt the
benefits of machine control.
Kerville, P. (2008), Machine Control at Conexpo, in Kerville's MovingDirt Magazine, edited.
Kuhlmann, H. and H. Heister (2006), Steering Problems and Solutions During Construction of Roads,
Geodetic Institute, University of Bonn, Germany, 2006/05/22/24.
This paper deals with some problems and their solution which have occurred in automated
steering of construction machines during road construction. Position and orientation of the
construction machine are determined by sensors and will be instantaneously compared with
reference data of the road planning. Hydraulic cylinders of the machine will then be addressed in
a way that the geometry determining part of the machine, as e.g. the blade of a grader, can
establish the reference geometry of the layer to be incorporated. For this measuring and
controlling procedure different sensors are being used which are located in many different places
of the machine. It all happens while the machine is moving so that problems with the temporal
synchronization of the sensors and the machine inertia must also be considered.
B-66

Li, Y., D. Dusha, W. Kellar and A. Dempster (2009), Calibrated MEMS Inertial Sensors with GPS for a
Precise Attitude Heading Reference System on Autonomous Farming Tractors, paper presented at The
22nd International Technical Meeting of The Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS
2009), Savannah International Convention Center, Savannah, GA September 22 - 25, 2009.
GNSS/INS (Global Navigation Satellite System/Inertial Navigation System) systems have found
widespread usage in industry and especially in automated agriculture. These systems produce a
high frequency attitude solution for mobile agents. The mojoRTK, an agricultural product from
Leica Geosystems, is based around a GPS/INS system, utilizing a survey-grade L1/L2
GPS/GLONASS antenna in addition to another L1 GPS antenna. A new algorithm based on loose
GNSS/INS integration has been developed in the University of New South Wales for mojoRTK
system which is known as AHRSKF (Attitude and Heading Reference System Kalman
Filter).The advantage of the AhrsKf is that it takes inputs from the survey grade L1/L2 antenna
alone, thus reducing or eliminating the need for the two antenna system used in the existing major
RTK algorithm. The initial analysis has shown that the two (AhrsKf and existing mojoRTK)
solutions have comparable performance. This paper introduces the integration Kalman filter
design and addresses its implementation aspects. Multiple L1/L2 GPS receivers in a three antenna
configuration are set up in the test as a benchmark to evaluate the AhrsKf solution. The test was
conducted at the Leica Geosystems testing farm at Boonah in a tractor equipped with a mojoRTK
autosteer system. The AhrsKf solution is derived in a post-processing procedure by using the
recorded L1/L2 GNSS and inertial sensor data from the log files of the mojoRTK console. The
performance of the algorithms is compared by extracting the time series of the errors in yaw,
pitch and roll solutions relative to thereference multi-antenna GPS solution.
Mahbub, R. (2008), An Investigation into the Barriers to the Implementation of Automation and Robotics
Technologies in the Construction Industry, Queensland University of Technology.
The rising problems associated with construction such as decreasing quality and productivity,
labour shortages, occupational safety, and inferior working conditions have opened the possibility
of more revolutionary solutions within the industry. One prospective option is in the
implementation of innovative technologies such as automation and robotics, which has the
potential to improve the industry in terms of productivity, safety and quality. The construction
work site could, theoretically, be contained in a safer environment, with more efficient execution
of the work, greater consistency of the outcome and higher level of control over the production
process. by identifying the barriers to construction automation and robotics implementation in
construction, and investigating ways in which to overcome them, contributions could be made in
terms of better understanding and facilitating, where relevant, greater use of these technologies in
the construction industry so as to promote its efficiency. This research aims to ascertain and
explain the barriers to construction automation and robotics implementation by exploring and
establishing the relationship between characteristics of the construction industry and attributes of
existing construction automation and robotics technologies to level of usage and implementation
in three selected countries; Japan, Australia and Malaysia. These three countries were chosen as
their construction industry characteristics provide contrast in terms of culture, gross domestic
product, technology application, organizational structure and labour policies. This research uses a
mixed method approach of gathering data, both quantitative and qualitative, by employing a
questionnaire survey and an interview schedule; using a wide range of sample from management
through to on-site users, working in a range of small (less than AUD0.2 million) to large
companies (more than AUD500million), and involved in a broad range of business types and
construction sectors. Detailed quantitative (statistical) and qualitative (content) data analysis is
performed to provide a set of descriptions, relationships, and differences. The statistical tests
selected for use include cross-tabulations, bivariate and multivariate analysis for investigating
possible relationships between variable; and Kruskal-Wallis and Man Whitney U test of
B-67

independent samples for hypothesis testing and inferring the research sample to the construction
industry population. Findings and conclusions arising from the research work which include the
ranking schemes produced for four key areas of, the construction attributes on level of usage;
barrier variables; differing levels of usage between countries; and future trends, have established
a number of potential areas that could impact the level of implementation both globally and for
individual countries.
Meyer, H. J. and C. Rusch (2008), Self-configuring, Mobile Networks in the Area of Agriculture, paper
Based on a mobile, electronic satellite system designed to position and transfer security and
operation data of mobile working machines, the Technische Universität Berlin developed an
instrument to connect independently net different devices and machines for the collection of
process data, control and diagnoses purposes. The centre of this unit is a PAN module controlled
by a micro controller (PAN = private area network). Based on the wireless standard of ZigBee,
the network is able to independently establish networks even across huge distances, via multi-
hopping. The modules act independently, having analogous inlets e.g. for temperature control as
well as digital inlets and outlets, an integrated CAN interface, a GPS receiver and, if required,
they are additionally fitted with a GPRS port for data transfer via internet. In addition to the
technical details of the modules, this paper shall give an overview of possible applications of such
systems. The wireless data transfer can be used for a universal agricultural documentation system,
shown by the example of the harvester. Harvest data depending on the position as well as other
crop data can be transmitted from the harvester’s communication-box to the communication-box
of the transport vehicle while transferring the crop. Thus, the transport vehicle disposes of all
information about the crop, e.g. place of harvesting, harvest quality, harvesting time etc. These
data can then be transferred to the following crop stages, setting up a complete information chain
ending with the consumer. It is an advantage that the crop does not have to be fitted with data
media in the harvesting process. However, a problem might be the size of the considered crop
bunches and the potential commingling with different bunches, impeding clear retracement.The
autonomous communication-boxes include an Atmel micro controller to actuate function. The
functions ZigBee, GPS, CAN, GPRS and SD Card are transmitted via SPI. ZigBee is used for the
communication between mobile machines and the head quarter.
Navon, R. (2006), Present Status and Future Prospects of Automated Project Performance Indicators'
Measurement, 2006.
Current monitoring and control methods rely on massive manual work. As a result, control
information is expensive to acquire, or is generated irregularly. Additionally, the information is
only available infrequently and its quality and integrity are low. The purpose of the work
presented in this paper is to improve monitoring and control information, i.e. to offer it on a daily
basis, to improve its quality and integrity and to reduce the cost of generating it. To do all this, the
Technion APPC researcher group started exploring the use of automated data collection (ADC)
technologies. We developed models for automated labor and earthmoving equipment control, as
well as models which utilize data froman existing systems – daily site reporting and building
programs.
Nelson, K. B. (2008), APWA-WA Division 1 Subcommittee Discussion Paper, edited.
Noland, R. (2013), Carlson DrillGrade™ - Altas Copco FlexiROC™ HEC3 Drills Factory Integration,
edited.
B-68

Carlson Machine Control, in cooperation with Atlas Copco, has installed the first factory 3D
drilling system integrating Atlas Copco's new 3rd party protocol running on a FlexiROC™ drill
with the HEC3 system. Integration and testing was completed at the Atlas Copco factory in
Örebro Sweden in January 2013. Carlson Machine Control's DrillGrade™ system is also
compatible as an upgrade to Atlas Copco's SmartROC™ with RSP system. More information on
kit details, where to order, etc will be posted on this page over the next week. Please stay tuned!
http://carlsonmachinecontrol.com/prod... Meanwhile, please feel free to email
machinecontrol@carlsonsw.com with questions.
NYSDOT (2007), Summary of Information Learned From 2007 Projects Using Automated Construction
& Inspection technologies, edited.
The NYSDOT conducted field visits and independent interviews with contractor’s personnel,
DOT inspection personnel, and designers of eight projects which were under construction during
the 2007 season. The following summarizes what was learned from the observations and
discussions as it relates to the use of automated machine guidance, automated inspection
technologies, and the general use of electronic engineering data.
Reed, M. (2007), "Algeria Claims Largest Public Works Project." Retrieved 9/26/2007, from
http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/Algeria-Claims-Largest-Public-Works-Project/9328/.
Sadler, D. (2003), Building a Quality DTM for NYSDOT, edited, New York State Department of
Transportation.
Sanderson, L. The Use of GPS in the Department of Transportation, edited.
B-69


TEAM, G. E. S. GDOT Engineering Software TEAM MicroStation and InRoads Implementation Status,
edited, Georgia Department of Transportation.
Technologies, A. D. S. o. E. (2008), Proposal for Use of Electronic Engineering Data in Construction,

Proposal Rep., AGC/DOT Subcommittee on Emerging Technologies.
There are currently many technologies available to the Contractor for use in construction which
leverages the use of Electronic Engineering Data (EED). Automated Machine Guidance (AMG),
Automated Stakeout and Inspection, and Intelligent Compaction are a few of the present
examples utilized in construction and the industry looks promising in the near future for the
automation of asphalt and concrete paving, slip-form curbing, and milling of pavement. All of
these related technologies depend upon using reliable and accurate electronic geospatial data for
the precise positioning, removal, placement or treatment of materials. Most engineering data for
DOT capital projects is generated geospatially (relative to the earth’s surface) in one form or
another during the design phases of the project, and is then published in paper format as part of
the contract documents. Contractors then have to regenerate the electronic data for use in
construction. This EED proposal will provide insight and recommendations on why and how
engineering data should be provided to the Contractor and DOT Inspection Staff in its native
electronic format. (Please refer to the Appendix 1 for definitions of some terminology used in this
proposal).
FDOT. (2008), VBA Modeler for Automated Machine Control, in Design Conference 2008 People
Moving People, edited, Florida Department of Transportation.
MDOT. (2012), 3D Model Based Design Interim Guidelines.

The intention of a 3D model is to provide a comprehensive and true representation of a project
not only in the design phase, but also in construction.
Ujvari, B. and C. Engle (2007), Leveraging Electric Plan Data Utilizing Electronic Plan Files in the Field,
edited, Ohio DOT, OTEC Columbus, Ohio.
using automated machine guidance, paper presented at The 30th ISARC, International Association for
Automation and Robotics in Construction (IAARC), Montréal, Canada.
B-70

Voigt, J. (2013), Proper use of stringless slipform paving technology, edited.

Welcome to this Training Module on Proper Use of Stringless slipform paving technology. My
name is Jerry Voigt, and I am the President and CEO of the American Concrete Pavement
Association. We are very pleased to partner with the Federal Highway Administration to bring
you this training module. Stringless paving is a rapidly advancing technology in our
industry. Our goal is to provide you with both fundamental and comprehensive information to
help you understand how stringless technology works and what it takes to use it properly.
Vonderohe, A. (2008), Implementation of GPS Controlled Highway Construction Equipment Phase II,
Final Rep., University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Summary of Issues for Discussion 1. What will be WisDOT’s commitment on provision of
design-side data? Considerations include limited resources, the period of transition from CAiCE
to Civil 3D, and allotted time for making changes (e.g., some changes require more time than
others). There is an urgent need to address these and other data management issues such as
whether or not 3D modeling should be a bid item, the impact of involvement of third parties
(subcontractors for 3D modeling), and the role of the field engineer when not equipped with
necessary software. 2. What is the best means for getting other WisDOT regions involved? 3.
What effective educational mechanisms are there for WisDOT and contractor staff? 4. Will future
GPS machine guidance grading specifications include slopes and ditches or will they continue to
be confined to roadway subgrade? Are there aspects of the standard specifications that affect
grading of slopes and ditches and should be addressed for GPS machine guidance? 5. When
WisDOT goes to statewide options for bidding, will the regions have choices or will the option
apply to all contracts? 6. Is it possible to use existing section corners for horizontal control? 7.
There are problems with using last-pass data from the machines to construct as-built surfaces. For
example, data are collected whether the blade is cutting, flush with the ground, or above ground.
Also, such data can be collected only as points. No breaklines or labels can be inserted, so the
data would have to be interpreted and edited later with no information other than visual
inspection on which points should be connected to form lines. Furthermore, some “last-pass” data
have to be passed over again (for example, because of rutting). 8. The 2007 specification allows
the engineer to require conventional staking (blue tops) if GPS machine guidance is producing
unacceptable results. Should there be more flexibility for the engineer (e.g., requiring some blue
topping by choice)? Should the contractor also have the option of going to conventional staking
(e.g., equipment priorities)? 9. Are 2007 tolerances too stringent or not stringent enough?
Feedback from the projects indicated they are appropriate and should not be changed. 10. Why is
it necessary for the site calibration check points to be different from the control points used for
calibration? If the site calibration checks once, could site calibration control points be used for
future checks? Can site calibration checks be reduced to one per day? 11. What is the appropriate
number and configuration of control points for site calibration? Can the 2007 specification be
reduced? Under the 2007 specification on the Hoffman project, there were only two project
control points that could be used to check site calibrations. 12. Concerning the specified 20
subgrade check points per mile, what about divided highways? Is the specified number per lane-
B-71

mile or per linear mile? 13. Should initial staking and subgrade be separated in the specification?
14. Not all machines have GPS machine guidance, so initial staking is necessary. In addition,
subcontractors (e.g., for clearing and grubbing) might not have the technology and will need
stakes. There are mixed opinions on whether or not slope staking can be reduced to every other
station. Doing so could cause problems with, for example, topsoil stripping in non-uniform areas.
15. What are the appropriate ways for the contractor and the department to share electronic
information in proprietary formats (e.g., site calibration files). This is separate from the 3D
modeling data management issue.
Vonderohe, A. (2009), Status and Plans for Implementing 3D Technologies for Design and Construction
in WisDOTRep. WisDOT Project ID: 0657-45-11, Construction and Materials Support Center University
of Wisconsin – Madison Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
The original objective of this project was to assist WisDOT in preliminary stages of identifying
institutional issues, relevant design and construction work processes that would be impacted,
consequences, and legal issues that could arise by directly providing design 3D models to
contractors for contractual purposes. After meeting this objective and conducting a stakeholder
workshop to validate findings and develop recommendations, the project scope was expanded
beyond 3D models and DTMs to include 3D technologies in general. Accordingly, the final
objective of the project was development of a high-level implementation plan for 3D technologies
and methods for design and construction.
Wendebaum, J. (2008), No Driving in Circles - Improving the Research and Development of Mobile
Machinery and Control Systems by Using Advanced Simulation Technology, paper presented at 1st
The research and development of hardware, control and communication mechanisms for mobile
machinery always requires a high amount of practical testing and debugging. In many cases, the
developers need a machine or at least a test rack during a long time of a development project. By
simulating the target hardware on the developers' PC, the development process, testing and
debugging can already start at a very early phase of the project, before the target hardware is even
available. This article presents and demonstrates an advanced simulation environment which can
be used to simulate a complete as well as a mixed environment, and shows how testing and
debugging can be performed in a much more controllable and repeatable manner. Also, the
benefit for research of the behaviour of mobile machinery is shown, where the technology can be
used to create and control a complete machine. Further, simulation is compared to the testing on
real machines, and limitations and possible issues are discussed.
Wunderlich, T., T. Schäfer and S. Auer (2008), Passage Simulation of Monorail Suspension Conveyors
and Transport Goods for Collision Prevention, paper presented at 1st International Conference on
Machine Control & Guidance 2008, 2008.
Modern industrial production involves complex and time-critical process chains which demand a
sophisticated supply chain management and logistics as well as safe and reliable transport
systems. Inside a vast factory individual parts (e.g. engines) cover large distances by using
specific transport lines, e.g. electric monorail suspension conveyors. In such an environment, the
avoidance of any collision of units with the surrounding area or flexible tools becomes a must.
Above all, it is an interruption of production that has to be prevented as this would result in very
high financial losses for every minute break. On the other hand, last minute changes in product
design are typical and call for a simulation tool to compute dynamic interference checks and to
visualize detected risk zones where problems might occur. The paper gives an overview over
common interference detection techniques of moving objects among solids and surfaces and
B-72

finally introduces the prototype Software KoSimu (Kollisionsprüfungs- Simulator) developed at

the Chair of Geodesy in course of a diploma thesis. It provides a collision check simulator that
enables the designer to simulate the motion of a part prototype along a known trajectory through
the facility and detect collision spots. To acquire the transport line’s surrounding, Terrestrial
Laser Scanning is applied, creating representative point clouds. The complementing input for
KoSimu consists of geometric models of the part prototype and the mounting device on the
suspension conveyers. In a first step, these two models have to be linked using specific
connection points. Subsequently, the new model is approximated by suitable cubes of selectable
size and reduced to its characteristic envelope. Under the assumption of homogeneous mass
distribution (centre of mass equals the geometric centre) physical effects (centrifugal and reset
forces, oscillating movements) can be considered as well. The geometric and the physical model
are jointly used to create a space of impact along the track which is tested against the point clouds
of obstacles to reveal and successively prevent any possible collisions
Zogheib, A. (2008), Autonomous Navigation Tool for Real & Virtual Field Robots, paper presented at 1st
Due to ecological and economical demands in agriculture as well as technological improvements,
the development of autonomous field robots has gained importance within the last years. A
common task for all field robots, whatever their main function is, is to Autonomously Navigate
between row cultures. As a first step, toward a full featured Simulator tool dedicated to
agriculture applications, an autonomous navigation tool based on sensor fusion and fuzzy logic,
has been realised. The data of various sensors are transferred to control variables thereby opening
the options for including further sensors without changing the model. Different aspects ranging
from missing plants to path planning (such as skipping rows) and field mapping are included. A
wireless connection with the physical robot is implemented, currently it is used for robot
navigation control, data sending and receiving. The first experiments for the navigation between
rows showed that simulation and real world were in phase.
SPECIFICATIONS/STANDARDS
U.S. DOT
The Future has Arrived!, in Kerville’s MovingDirt Magazine, edited, p. 1.
B-73

If you’re involved in machine control, tune in to this. It’s the biggest news of the decade, in our
view. And it puts squarely on the horizon the virtual certainty of a new generation of positioning
technology that offers far better reliability than today’s 3D gear.
A few days ago Trimble announced that it had signed an agreement with Nunzio Gambale’s
Locata Corporation of Canberra, for development and distribution of construction equipment
integrating Locata’s technology with Trimble’s GNSS systems. The applications specified in the
agreement are heavy and highway construction and building construction.
(2013), Use of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) within the Transportation Industry, List of States,
edited.
FDOT. (2007), Multi-Line Earthwork for Designers, 72 pp.

This manual, created by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Engineering / CADD
Systems Office (ECSO), instructs designers on how to use Multi-Line Earthwork to verify
earthwork quantities calculated from their created GEN file(s). The general file format,
commonly referred to as a GEN file, is an ASCII text file where cross section surface lines (i.e.,
existing ground, bottom of proposed template, etc.) are described individually. GEN files are
most commonly used to perform earthwork calculations. FDOT requires that GEN files be
included in Electronic Plans deliveries for specified surfaces in accordance with Chapter 8 of the
CADD Production Criteria Handbook. Throughout this manual, Arial Font text is used to indicate
the title of a screen/window and bold text to indicate words that appear on the screen/window,
such as a button name. Occasionally, bold text is also used to emphasize a point. A flow chart is
used to describe the work flow. Following the presentation of the flow chart, each step is shown
in logical order. Some steps may be skipped based on the answers to questions shown on the flow
chart. For more detailed information than that presented herein, Multi-Line Earthwork's on-line
help can be access by clicking Help in the top left corner of the current menu (shown below).
There is also a training manual, FDOT Multi-Line Earthwork, available with detailed example
problems.
MoDOT. (2009), Specifications of Computer Deliverable Contract Plans, 5 pp., MISSOURI

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MoDOT).
The Missouri Department of Transportation uses MicroStation for highway and bridge design and
drafting. Highway design surveys and road design computation are achieved by using the
GEOPAK software. All department drawings are available to the consultant in a MicroStation
DGN format only. GEOPAK deliverable requirements pertain to road design, preliminary
design, and survey projects only. Bridge design projects do not require GEOPAK deliverables.
AASHTO (2007), REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRONIC DATA TO BE SUPPLIED TO

CONSTRUCTION, 2 pp.
3D models detailing a project’s proposed design shall be developed for work on projects which:
1) significantly change the terrain surface, 2) could impact the determination of the need to
acquire right of way, 3) involves the construction of new bridge substructures, 4) could visually
confirm sufficient safe clearance for the traveling public during construction phases, or 5) could
verify that required clearances for construction operations and installations are achievable. At a
minimum, 3D models of the proposed finished surface shall be provided for all work areas of
projects which involve the following types of construction changes and proposed improvements.
Surface models shall also be provided for top of roadway subgrade in all areas of new
construction or full reconstruction.
B-74

Administration, M. S. H. (2008), Part III Technical Requirements, Section 107 Construction Stakeout
Standard Specifications for Construction and Materials.
Cawley, B. (2013), Civil Integrated Management (CIM), edited.

CIM is the collection, organization, and managed accessibility to accurate data and information
related to a highway facility. The concept may be used by all affected parties for a wide range of
purposes, including planning, environmental, surveying, construction, maintenance, asset
management, and risk assessment.
CODOT (2008), REVISION OF SECTION 625 SURVEY CONTROL OF GRADING BY GPS OR RTS
METHODS, 2 pp.
CODOT (2008), Survey Manual, Chapter 3: GPS/GNSS Surveys, in Survey Manual, edited, p. 47.
The purpose of this chapter is to define the specifications that shall be followed while performing
GPS/GNSS surveys for CDOT by CDOT surveyors or contract consultant surveyors. As
advances in GPS technology are made in hardware and processing software that prove a higher
degree of accuracy is more easily attained, new specifications for CDOT shall be developed and
sections of this chapter shall be revised to stay current with those advances.
For brevity, GPS/GNSS shall be referred to as GPS throughout the Survey Manual.
Any variation from the specifications shall have the prior approval of the Region Survey
Coordinator
Erik, C., H. Darrell and B. Dan (2001), Global Positioning System (GPS) Inventory Standards, edited,
Oregon Department of Transportation.
This document was compiled during the Global Position System (GPS) development phase for
ODOT's Road Inventory and Classification Services Unit. This document establishes a consistent
method for collecting resource grade* GPS inventory data, and is a summary of “lessons learned”
from RICS Unit experience with the Trimble GPS equipment. The intent is to outline procedural
standards for collecting resource grade GPS inventory data, and to serve as a supplement to the
Trimble equipment manuals.
Garris, R. A. (2008), Addendum No. 3, edited, North Carolina Department of Transportation.
INDOT (2009), INDOT 2010 Standard Specifications, ICA/INDOT Northern Region Joint Cooperative
Committee.
Indiana DOT's standard specifications for construction stakes, lines, and grades
INDOT (2009), INDOT 2010 Standard Specifications, edited, ICA/INDOT Northern Region Joint
Cooperative Committee.
IndianaDOT's standard specifications for construction stakes, lines, and grades
Johnson, P. (2009), MEMORANDUM TO: AMG Committee MembersRep., 2 pp, STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
Kennerly, M. J. Machine Control Grading, edited, Iowa DOT.
B-75

Melas, P. and L. Barrett. (2009), Specifications: How Much Information is Enough?, edited, Texas
NCDOT (2009), AUTOMATED MACHINE GUIDANCE, 2 pp.
Powell, E. C. (2006), Minutes to the Joint Committee Meeting Memorandum, edited.

The Joint Cooperative Committee of the AGC-DOT met at 10:00 AM on July 20, 2006, in the
Chief Engineer's Conference Room at the NCDOT Maintenance and Equipment Facility located
on Beryl Road in Raleigh
Reed, J. A. (2004), Office of Engineering and Technology Declares Geophysical survey Systems, inc.
Request for a Wavier of Part 15 to be a "Permit-But-Disclose" Proceeding for Ex Parte Purposes, edited.
On October 13, 2004, Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. (“GSSI”) filed a request for a waiver of
Part 15 of the Commission’s rules to permit the higher power operation of ultra-wideband
(“UWB”) non-contact ground penetrating radars (“GPRs”). Such GPRs are pulled behind
vehicles and are used to test broad or lengthy surfaces such as highways, railroad beds and
runways to detect flaws in those structures.
Sheldon, D. and C. Mason (2009), A Proposal for Statewide CAD Standards in IowaRep., Howard R.
Green Company.
The MicroStation/GEOPAK and AutoCAD/Civil 3D platforms are widely used tools in the
design and drafting of infrastructure improvements. Recent advances in these platforms have
created new opportunities to increase quality, reduce risk, and save time and money during design
and construction. However, the state of Iowa is not presently realizing the full benefit of these
advances. This paper proposes a way for Iowa communities to realize these benefits through the
development and implementation of statewide Computer Aided Design (CAD) standards. This
proposal would not merely the appearance of construction drawings; rather, it would bring a
consistent flow and methodology to the work of design.
Singh, R. (2009), Engineering Automation Key Concepts for a 25 Year Time HorizonRep., 26 pp, Oregon
Solutions, D. D. o. T. D. o. T. (2007), Design Guidance Memorandum, 2 pp.

To provide guidance on determining which projects will provide electronic data to contractors for
the use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) Machine Control grading techniques during
construction, and what design elements need to be considered.
Technologies, A. D. S. o. E. (2008), Proposal for Use of Electronic Engineering Data in Construction,

Proposal Rep., AGC/DOT Subcommittee on Emerging Technologies.
There are currently many technologies available to the Contractor for use in construction which
leverages the use of Electronic Engineering Data (EED). Automated Machine Guidance (AMG),
Automated Stakeout and Inspection, and Intelligent Compaction are a few of the present
examples utilized in construction and the industry looks promising in the near future for the
automation of asphalt and concrete paving, slip-form curbing, and milling of pavement. All of
these related technologies depend upon using reliable and accurate electronic geospatial data for
the precise positioning, removal, placement or treatment of materials. Most engineering data for
DOT capital projects is generated geospatially (relative to the earth’s surface) in one form or
B-76

another during the design phases of the project, and is then published in paper format as part of
the contract documents. Contractors then have to regenerate the electronic data for use in
construction. This EED proposal will provide insight and recommendations on why and how
engineering data should be provided to the Contractor and DOT Inspection Staff in its native
electronic format. (Please refer to the Appendix 1 for definitions of some terminology used in this
proposal).
Townes, D. (2013), Automated Machine Guidance, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, Rep., 6 pp, Federal
NCDOT. (2007), Earthwork, North Carolina Department of Transportation, edited, p. 12, North Carolina
NDDOT. (2008), NDDOT Procedures for Calculating Final Earthwork Quantities, edited, p. 73, North
Dakota Department of Transportation.
Alabama DOT. (2008), STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION, 731 pp.,
Montgomery, Alabama.
Colorado DOT. (2005), Standard Specifications for Road And Bridge Construction, Colorado Department
of Transportation.
California DOT. (2006), Differential Leveling Survey Specifications 10 pp., California Department of
Transportation
standard. Specifications in this section are based on Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee
(FGCS) standards and specifications. Except where noted, they have been modified to give results
that will meet the requirements for various types of differential leveling surveys typically
performed by the Department. For details regarding standards, refer to Chapter 5, “Accuracy
Classifications and Standards.” The Department’s differential leveling survey specifications shall
be used for all Caltrans-involved transportation improvement projects, including special-funded
projects.
California DOT. (2006), Global Positioning System (GPS) Survey Specifications-06, 42 pp.
Section 6B are based on accepted California Department of Transportation standards. For
B-77

Standards.” Caltrans GPS survey specifications are to be used for all Caltrans involved
transportation improvement projects, including special-funded projects. GPS surveying is an
evolving technology. As GPS hardware and processing software are improved, new specifications
will be developed and existing specifications will be changed. The specifications described in this
section are not intended to discourage the development of new GPS procedures and techniques.
Connecticut DOT. (2007), Digital Design Environment GuideRep., 96 pp, Newington, CT.
Transportation, C. D. o. (2007), Machine Control Grading – Special Provisions 5-1.26.
Transportation, C. D. O. (2008), Plans Preparation Manual.
Transportation, C. D. o. (2008), Survey Control of Grading by GPS or RTS Methods – Revision of Section
625, Pilot Project Special Provision.
Transportation, C. D. o. (2009), GUIDELINES for IMPLEMENTING AUTOMATED MACHINE

GUIDANCE, 8 pp., California Department of Transportation.
These guidelines, roles, and responsibilities, provide guidance for Department employees to
facilitate contractor use of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) technology on state highway
projects. AMG technology has the potential to reduce time and cost of construction and
Department support costs. This document supersedes the 2005 “INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR
USE OF MACHINE GUIDANCE TECHNOLOGY”. These guidelines were updated based on
lessons learned from the Brawley Bypass Stage 2 project, and other projects from around the
state. They apply throughout the project initiation, design, and construction phases of project
delivery.
California DOT. (2013), Implementation of Automated Machine Guidance for Ongoing Projects
(Memorandum).
This directive provides guidance to the resident engineer regarding the contractor’s option to
request and obtain from Caltrans the original ground digital terrain model (DTM) and digital
design model (DDM), or the electronic design files for the contractor to create a DTM and DDM,
so that automated machine guidance (AMG) systems may be used on a project. AMG is a
technology that is becoming an industry standard for earthmoving on private and public works
projects. AMG is used on bulldozers, scrapers, blades, loaders, etc. Some paving equipment may
use AMG techniques.
California DOT. (2012), Global Positioning System (GPS) Survey Specifications, California Department
of Transportation, 42 pp., California Department of Transportation.
Section 6B are based on accepted California Department of Transportation standards. The
specifications in Section 6A are separate and distinct from the specifications in Section 6B. For
B-78

Standards.” Caltrans GPS1 survey specifications are to be used for all Caltrans-involved
transportation improvement projects, including special-funded projects. GPS surveying is an
evolving technology. As GPS hardware and processing software are improved, new specifications
will be developed and existing specifications will be changed. The specifications described in this
section are not intended to discourage the development of new GPS procedures and techniques.
survey specifications are to be used for all Caltrans-involved transportation improvement
projects, including special-funded projects.
Delaware DOT. Machine Control Grading, 6 pp.

This specification contains the requirements for grading operations utilizing Global Positioning
Systems (GPS).
Transportation, D. D. o. (2009), Draft specification for Machine Control – section 763637.

Systems (GPS).
Transportation, F. D. o. "CADD Production Criteria Handbook (CPCH)." Retrieved 25/10, 2013, from
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/ecso/downloads/publications/criteriahandbook/default.shtm.
Transportation, I. D. o. (2007), Developmental Specifications for Global Positioning System Machine

Control Grading, 4 pp.
This specification contains requirements for grading construction utilizing Global Positioning
System (GPS) machine control grading techniques and shall be used in conjunction with Section
2526, of the Standard Specifications. The Contractor may utilize grading equipment controlled
with a GPS machine control system in the construction of the roadway embankment. The plans
indicate the areas of the project where the Contracting Authority IDOT is providing electronic
surface models of the roadway embankment construction. The remaining areas may be
constructed with conventional construction survey techniques unless the Contractor chooses to
build the required surface models to facilitate GPS machine control grading for those areas at no
additional cost to the Contracting Authority. The Contractor may use any type of GPS machine
control equipment and systems that results in achieving the existing grading requirements. The
Contractor shall convert the electronic data provided by the Contracting Authority into the format
required by their system.
Transportation, I. D. o. (2009), SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR SLIPFORM PAVING SYSTEM

MACHINE CONTROL 4pp., Worth County.
THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, SERIES 2001, ARE AMENDED BY THE
FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS. THESE ARE SPECIAL PROVISIONS
AND THEY SHALL PREVAIL OVER THOSE PUBLISHED IN THE STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS.
Transportation, I. D. o. (2012), DEVELOPMENTAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR PCC PAVING 3-D

MACHINE CONTROL, 2 pp.
THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, SERIES 2012, ARE AMENDED BY THE
FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS. THESE ARE DEVELOPMENTAL
SPECIFICATIONS AND THEY SHALL PREVAIL OVER THOSE PUBLISHED IN THE
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.
B-79

Transportation, I. D. o. (2014), Measurement and Earthwork Calculations.
Transportation, M. D. o. (2000), Missouri Department of Transportation Specifications of Computer

Deliverable Contract Plans, 5 pp., Missouri Department of Transportation
The Missouri Department of Transportation uses MicroStation for highway and bridge design and
drafting. Highway design surveys and road design computation are achieved by using the
GEOPAK software. All department drawings are available to the consultant in a MicroStation
DGN format only. GEOPAK deliverable requirements pertain to road design, preliminary design,
and survey projects only. Bridge design projects do not require GEOPAK deliverables.
TRANSPORTATION, M. D. O. (2001), DIGITAL SURFACE MODEL COMPILATION 4pp.

This Specification is established to provide the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MN/DOT) with “Photogrammetry Products and Services” from Private Photogrammetric
Partners (Contractor).
Transportation, M. D. o. (2004), Waiver of Liability.
Transportation, M. D. o. (2005), District Check List.
Transportation, M. D. o. (2005), Specifications for Delivery of Electronic Design Data.
Transportation, M. D. o. (2007), Surveying and Mapping Manual, 395 pp.

This manual incorporates and sets forth accepted practices developed in the Surveying Program
and the Interactive Graphics/Automated Drafting System. The manual will be kept current
through a continuing program to keep Surveying and Mapping personnel up-to-date on the
changes coming about because of research, new technology and the surveying organization of
Mn/DOT, while continuing to emphasize sound survey practices.
TRANSPORTATION, M. D. O. (2010), Automated Machine Guidance Systems, 4 pp.
Transportation, M. D. o. (August 1, 2001), Test Profiles for Digital Terrain Models, Minnesota
Department of Transportation, 7 pp.
Jointly developed by the Photogrammetics and GEOPAK Units within the Minnesota Department
of Transportation, this procedure details the standard procedure and deliverables of test profile
DTM data from district Surveys to Photogrammetics. Standard data collection procedures are
used, however, specific feature codes should be utilized in order to share data with
Photogrammetics. Past procedures required the delivery of chains, profiles, and ASCII print-outs
to Photo. This is no longer necessary.
Transportation, M. D. o. (July 2001), Special Provisions for: Group 3: Digital Terrain Model/Digital
Elevation Model Products and Services, Minnesota DOT. , 4 pp., Minnesota Department of
Transportation
This Specification is established to provide the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MN/DOT) with “Photogrammetry Products and Services” from Private Photogrammetric
Partners (Contractor).
B-80

Transportation, N. C. D. o. (2008), Automated Machine Guidance – Special Provisions for Contract

201918 (R-2606B) Addendum 3: “US 311 Bypass from north of Spencer Road (SR 1929) to US 220”.
This Special Provision contains requirements that shall be followed if the Design-Build Team
elects to use Global Positioning System (GPS) machine control grading and shall be used in
conjunction with Section 801 of the 2006 Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. The
use of this technology is referenced as Automated Machine Guidance (AMG).
Transportation, N. D. o. Survey Standards, 19 pp., Nevada Department of Transportation.
Transportation, N. Y. D. o. (2006), REVISIONS TO SECTION 105-10, SURVEY AND STAKEOUT, 9

pp.
Transportation, N. Y. S. D. o. NYSDOT’s Bentley Inspector/Stakeout Pilot Projects, edited, New York

State Department of Transportation.
Transportation, N. Y. S. D. o. (2005), Moving to 2004 Edition for Engineering Consultants NYSDOT

Standards PlansRep., 47 pp, New York State Department of Transportation, New York State Department
of Transportation.
The content is intended to provide an overview of changes expected to NYSDOT CADD
Standards as a result of the Department’s impending upgrade to V8.5 Micro-Station and InRoads.
The recipient will be responsible for maintaining contact with the New York State Department of
Transportation and determine if any future NYSDOT changes affect the work being produced by
the recipient. Although NYSDOT make every effort to ensure the accuracy of its work, it cannot
guarantee that the information provided is error free. NYSDOT accepts no responsibility for costs
or other adverse consequences, whether direct or indirect, that may occur to the recipient or any
subsequent users of this information, due to errors that may or may not be detected. The
recipients of this information may not sell or transfer it to others without written approval from
the New York State Department of Transportation.
Transportation, N. Y. S. D. o. (2005), PREPARATION AND TRANSFER OF ELECTRONIC

ENGINEERING DATA, 8 pp., New York State Department of Transportation.
PURPOSE: To remind all involved in the design and/or delivery of Capital Projects for letting by
the Department, of the guidance regarding the preparation and transfer of electronic engineering
data.
TECHNICAL INFORMATION: The excerpts from Chapter 2 of the “CADD Standards and
Procedure Manual” provided on pages 3 through 8 of this EB are being transmitted to remind
project developers of the current guidance regarding the preparation and transfer of engineering
data.
Transportation, N. Y. S. D. o. (2006), Engineering Instruction 06-007: Revision to Standard

Specifications: Section 105-10, Survey and Stakeout; Section 625, Survey Operations, Row Markers &
Permanent Survey Markers, 12 pp., New York State Department of Transportation.
The purpose of this EI is to revise the subject specifications and incorporate the use of new
technologies into the construction of Capital Projects
B-81

Transportation, N. Y. S. D. o. (2006), REVISION TO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: SECTION 105-

10, SURVEY AND STAKEOUT; SECTION 625, SURVEY OPERATIONS, ROW MARKERS &
PERMANENT SURVEY MARKERS, 12 pp., New York State Department of Transportation.
Transportation, N. Y. S. D. o. (2009), REVISION TO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: SECTION 625,

SURVEY OPERATIONS, ROW AND SURVEY MARKERS, AND GPS INSPECTION UNITS
Transportation, O. D. o. (2008), Letter of Clarification No. 3, Oregon Department of Transportation.
Transportation, O. D. o. (2010), Construction Machine Automation, six years plan Rep., Oregon
Transportation, S. O. C. D. O. (2006), STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS STATE OF CALIFORNIA:

BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY, 872 pp., State Of California Department Of
Transportation Publication Distribution Unit.
Transportation, S. O. C. D. O. (2008), Project Delivery Acceleration Toolbox: Improvements to the

Project Delivery Process, 68 pp., State Of California Department Of Transportation.
The Project Delivery Acceleration Toolbox (Toolbox) is a comprehensive report listing the
California Department of Transportation’s (Department) efforts (past and present) to accelerate
the delivery of transportation projects. This document also identifies proposed tools for the
Department to implement over the next few years.This document will be modified often to reflect
the most current and continuing improvement efforts of the Department. The purpose of this
document is to provide the Department’s employees, as well as our external partners, valuable
tools to accelerate project delivery. The Toolbox is on the Department’s Project Delivery website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/projaccel/index.htm. The Toolbox contents are separated into
three sections: Implemented Improvements, Proposed Improvements, and Status of
Improvements. All three sections are organized by Department functional division (i.e., Budgets,
Planning, Programming, etc.). The last section lists all improvements in a spreadsheet format for
quick reference and indicates the status of each improvement.
Transportation, W. D. o. Construction Staking Subgrade, Item 650.4500, 3 pp., Wisconsin Department of

Transportation.
Transportation, W. D. o. (2008), Construction and Materials Manual, Wisconsin Department of

Transportation.
Transportation, W. D. o. (2008), machine Control Project Delivery Memo# 08-01 8pp.
Transportation, W. D. o. (2009), Wisconsin Guide. Washington, D.C, edited.
Transportation, W. D. o. (Nov. 2010), Construction and Materials Manual, Construction Surveying, 5

pp., Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
Transportation, W. S. D. o. (2009), Construction Staking Subgrade, Item 650.4500 (Special Provision).
B-82

Under the Construction Staking Subgrade bid item the contractor may substitute global
positioning system (GPS) machine guidance for conventional subgrade staking on all or part of
the work. The engineer may require the contractor to revert to conventional subgrade staking
methods for all or part of the work at any point during construction if, in the engineer's opinion,
the GPS machine guidance is producing unacceptable results.
Transportation, W. S. D. o. (2014), CMM 7.18 GPS Machine Guidance.

Standard spec 650.3.3 allows the contractor to substitute GPS machine guidance for all or part of
the subgrade staking work under the contract. The extents of each GPS machine guidance
segment and each subgrade staking segment need to be described in the contractor's GPS work
plan. It is the contractor's option whether they will use GPS machine guidance or conventional
methods. Not all projects are suitable for GPS use. Projects with a dense tree canopy, large
vertical cuts, or limited survey control may not prove suitable. On these projects subgrade staking
would continue to be performed using conventional methods.
Transportation, W. V. D. o. (2010), Construction Layout Stakes for Electronic Data, 3 pp.
Transportation, W. V. D. o. (2011), Excavation and Embankment Lump Sum Excavation, 3 pp.
Turner, M. S. (2011), Caltrans Office of Land Surveys UpdateRep., 4 pp, Office of Land Surveys,
Caltrans.
Vonderohe, A. (2009), WisDOT Implementation Plan: 3D Technologies for Design and ConstructionRep.
CMSC: MC 08- 09 – WO 2.6, Construction and Materials Support Center University of Wisconsin –
Madison Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
This plan addresses a management strategy and six initiatives for moving towards realization of
the vision statement. Components of the initiatives are either underway within WisDOT or
proposed herein and relate directly to three-dimensional technologies and methods. The
objectives of the plan are to establish or reiterate justifications for the initiatives, identify
relationships among them, coordinate among the initiatives where appropriate, recommend
actions that will help realize synergistic benefits, assign priorities, establish or reiterate milestones
and timelines, and identify responsible parties.
Vonderohe, A., K. Brockman, G. Whited and J. Zogg (2009), Development of a Specification for GPS-
Machine-Guided Construction of Highway Subgrade - Publications Index, in Transportation Research
Board 88th Annual Meeting, edited, p. 17, Transportation Research Board 88th Annual Meeting,
Washingto DC.
Global Positioning System (GPS) machine guidance for highway construction is being rapidly
adopted by contractors due to associated large productivity gains. Seeking to support the industry
and share in benefits of this emerging technology, some state DOTs have developed or are
developing specifications for use of GPS machine guidance in construction. In 2006, the
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), embarked upon a three-year effort to
develop, pilot, refine, and implement a sub grade construction specification intended to ultimately
become a statewide option for bidding. The effort was guided by an advisory group with
representatives from WisDOT and the contracting, engineering consulting, and surveying
communities. Interviews with eight DOTs, FHWA, and private sector innovators, a literature
search, and deliberations of the advisory group led to an outline for the specification. This served
as the basis for a stakeholder workshop at which specification details were developed. Further
B-83

refinements led to a version that was piloted on two projects during the 2007 construction season.
Lessons learned from the initial pilot projects resulted in a second version used on four additional
pilot projects during 2008. The specification contains sections on GPS work plans, sharing of
GPS rovers, site calibration, positional tolerances for site calibration checks and sub grade
checks, and development and management of the necessary three-dimensional models. The new
specification will replace WisDOT’s standard specification for sub grade staking on projects that
use GPS machine guidance. Sub grade stakes (i.e., “blue tops”) are no longer required.
Wilson, A. (2013), QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTOMATED

MACHINE GUIDANCE SYSTEMS (AMG) Rep., 37 pp, AASHTO.
This document addresses the stages of implementing AMG. This report highlights the crux of all
the information gathered and is as brief as possible. Each State will need to conduct a series of
buy-in meetings, in order to address individual concerns and gather input from each entity
involved. This report will go thru the process that a project experiences from conception through
completion.
Wyoming, D. o. T. S. o. (2006), Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS Specification, 11 pp.

RTK GPS survey equipment and procedures will only yield a certain level of accuracy. Care shall
be taken to understand the accuracy of the equipment and the procedures utilized, to insure that
the necessary survey tolerances are met. During the preliminary survey meeting it should be
discussed and agreed upon as to what information can be obtained using RTK GPS equipment,
and what should be obtained using other surveying techniques and/or equipment.
RTK GPS surveying is an evolving technology. In the future, these specifications may need to be
changed or removed, and new specifications may need to be developed. Not all specifications
may apply equally or be appropriate for different models of RTK GPS equipment. If it is
questionable whether a particular model of RTK GPS equipment will meet these specifications,
its use shall be discussed and agreed upon at the preliminary survey meeting or before it is used
on a project. Where these specifications are vague or silent on a subject, refer to the
manufacturer's recommendations for use of a specific model of RTK GPS equipment. New
procedures not covered or not conforming to these specifications will not be used without prior
approval of the Photogrammetry & Surveys Engineer.
International
Australia, G. o. W. "Construction Surveying." Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA). Retrieved 25/10,
2013, from https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx.
Construction Surveying Specifications
AS-BUILT GEOMETRIC, PRODUCTIVITY, AND QA/QC DOCUMENTATION
Geometrical Mapping
(2013), ROADWAY SURFACE 3D LASER SCANNING, edited, p. 6.

One of the problems experienced with concrete overlays is to minimize quantity overruns due to
the lack of survey of the existing pavement. The advent of laser scanning has opened a new
avenue for mapping of pavement surfaces before overlay construction to help eliminate excessive
overruns. To date pavement surface mapping has been done with conventional survey equipment
B-84

such as a total station, rod and level, GPS rover unit or vertical (looking down) sonic units that
double as profile measuring devices. These methods are labor intensive and often require traffic
control to obtain the data. Laser scanning can offer reduction in survey cost, savings in time, and
less interference to the traveling public.
Engineering, 33(1), 125-142.
Jenkins, P. (2005), GPS/RTK Accuracy & Procedure Report Concerning Ground Control for Aerial
PhotographyRep., Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Land Management
Photogrammetric Unit.
This report has two purposes, the first is to be reactive to this recent error problem and address
those concerns. Secondly, to be proactive in dealing with the current work environment by
demonstrating the value in doing the job tasks correctly and thoroughly. This will be done by
clearly stating expectations regarding field and office procedures when using Real Time
Kinematic (RTK), Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment for ground control for aerial
photography. In addition, other aspects relating to ground control such as the aerial planning
process, targeting procedures and accuracy standards will also be reviewed.
Memon, Z. A., M. Z. Abd and M. Mustaffar (2006), The Use of Photogrammetry Techniques to Evaluate
the Construction Project Progress, Jurnal Teknologi.
The modeling of 3D objects from image sequence is a challenging problem and has been an
important research topic in the areas of photogrammetry and computer vision for many years.
Photogrammetry is the science of calculating 3D object co-ordinates from image and provides a
flexible and robust approach for measuring the static and dynamic characteristics for construction
management. This paper discusses the experience in Construction Technology and Management
Centre (CTMC), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) in adapting photogrammetry methods for
specific problems in the construction industry and outlines the principles of close-range
photogrammetry in evaluating the progress of construction projects. There is a need to use the
B-85

principles of close-range photogrammetry to evaluate the progress of construction project and to

develop the actual progress bar chart. The fundamental task of photogrammetry is to
rigorouslyestablish the geometric relationship between the image and the object, as it existed at
the time ofimaging event. One such software application is PhotoModeler Pro version from the
Canadian company Eos System has been suggested to extract the 3D features from 2D images.
The approach described in this paper demonstrates the use of digital photogrammetry as a
complementary method, which describes the 3D features extraction procedure in detail and
highlights the qualitative control that can be achieved during the construction. The technique uses
mainly off-the-shelf digitalcamera and software technologies that are affordable to most
organisations and able to provide acceptable accuracy.
Mettenleiter, M., N. Obertreiber, F. Härtl, M. Ehm, J. Baur and C. Fröhlich (2008), 3D Laser Scanner as
Part of Kinematic Measurement Systems, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine
The areas of applications for kinematic measurement systems were growing continuously in the
last few years. The conventional objectives are e.g. the surveying of infrastructure buildings,
railway tracks or tunnel measurement. New applications are the measurement of accident scenes
or the generation of 3D city models. The intention is a fast and integral multi sensor system for
the 3D survey of large objects to whole cities. This paper reports multi sensor systems which
contain 3D laser scanner and positioning sensors and the technique how to combine them. The
synchronisation of all sensors is an essential issue which affects the accuracy of the whole
system. The paper also presents different applications regarding systems for railway survey which
are already in use in a very profitable way and systems in the phase of development.
Service, M. F. (2009), GPS satellite system 'close to breakdown' and could fail by 2010 - leading
motorists straight into trouble | Mail Online.
TRANSPORTATION, N. D. D. O. (2007), As-Built for Earthwork Quantities, Rep., 19 pp.
B-86

This manual provides a written account of how certain activities are performed and is designed to
guide and assist staff members in performing their functions. When appropriate, there may be
deviations from these written procedures due to changes in personnel, policies, interpretation,
law, experimentation with different systems, or simply evolution of the process itself. This
manual may be changed at any time. Staff members are encouraged to review this manual
periodically and suggest changes in the manual to keep the manual current and to minimize
differences between the manual and actual practices.
Zogg, H.-M. and D. Grimm (2008), Kinematic Surface Analysis by Terrestrial Laser Scanning, paper
This paper presents terrestrial laser scanning with emphasis on kinematic surface analysis.
Besides an overview of terrestrial laser scanning in general, the 2D-laser scanner SICK LMS200-
30106 is introduced as well as investigations on its distance measurement qualities. This 2D-laser
scanner is often used for kinematic applications in the field of engineering geodesy due to its high
scanning frequency, robustness, and reliability. The kinematic surface analysis at Hamburg
Airport in conjunction with load tests is presented as an application for the 2D-laser scanner. In
general, an application of terrestrial laser scanning into the field of machine control and guidance
is conceivable.
Mechanistic Property Mapping (e.g., Intelligent Compaction)
You, T., R. Al-Rub, E. Masad, E. Kassem and D. Little (2013), Three-Dimensional Microstructural
Modeling Framework for Dense-Graded Asphalt Concrete using a Coupled Viscoelastic, Viscoplastic,
and Viscodamage Model*, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
5533.0000860.
This paper presents a three-dimensional (3D) image-based microstructural computational
modeling framework to predict thermo-viscoelastic, thermo-viscoplastic, and thermoviscodamage
response of asphalt concrete. X-ray Computed Tomography is used to scan densegraded asphalt
concrete (DGA) to obtain slices planar images from which the 3D microstructure is reconstructed.
Image processing techniques are used to enhance the quality of images in terms of phase
identification and separation of particles. This microstructure is divided to two phases: aggregates
and matrix. The aggregate phase is modeled as an elastic material and the matrix phase is
modeled as a thermo-viscoelastic, thermo-viscoplastic, and thermo-damage material. Stress-strain
response, damage propagation, and the distributions of the viscoelastic and viscoplastic strains are
predicted by performing virtual uniaxial and repeated creep-recovery tests of the developed 3D
model of asphalt concrete. The effects of loading rate, temperature, and loading type on the
thermo-mechanical response of asphalt concrete are investigated. In addition, the microscopic and
macroscopic responses of the DGA are compared with those of stone matrix asphalt (SMA). The
results demonstrated that SMA can sustain higher strain levels at the microscopic level and higher
macroscopic ultimate strength. The damage in SMA was more localized than the DGA. The
microstructure-based framework presented in this paper can be used to offer insight on the
influence of the distribution and properties of microscopic constituents on the macroscopic
behavior of asphalt concrete.
COST OF AMG
Construction
GPS-based setout saves on survey, increases production, in Topcon, edited.
B-87

Ciccone Constructions uses Topcon’s Hiper+ rover units to increase production and cut costs on
its subdivision projects.
Akin, K. (2009), Bringing Machine Control to California DOT (Caltrans) Construction Projects, in 2009
TRB 88th Annual Meeting, edited, Washington, D.C.
Geiger, S. and S. Andrews Quantity Manager / CEI Administrator, edited, New York State Department of
Transportation.
Grandia, C. (2006), GPSing Saves Second Guessing, in Midwest Contractor, edited, pp. 6-8.
This article discusses Steger Construction, a contractor that lists the benefits of GPS Technology
in their company.
Heikkilä, R. and M. Jaakkola (2003), The Efficiency of a 3-D Blade Control System in the Construction
of Structure Layers by Road Grader – Automated Design-Build of Road Construction in Finland, NIST
SPECIAL PUBLICATION SP, 475-480.
The paper reports on the research work in the domain of automated road construction. A new
method and prototype of automated road grader has been developed in Finland. The working
experiments show measurable influence and quality as well as economic profit to be achieved by
the new technology.
Jarosz, A. P. and R. Finlayson (2003), GPS Guidance System and Reduction of Open Pit Mining Costs
and Revenue Loss, Curtin University, 2003.
Mining companies, now and in the future, are required to minimise their overall costs to remain
competitive, as higher grades and easily accessible deposits are mined out. Savings are achievable
by minimising lost revenues (ore loss) and mining costs. The paper examines potential benefits
provided by GPS/DGPS guidance systems, installed on excavators, shovels, drill rigs,
dozers/graders and dump tracks, in lowering the overall mining costs, increasing utilisation of
mining deposits and maximising profit. The analyses are based on data provided by selected
metalliferous open pit operations in Western Australia.
Jonasson, S., P. S. Dunston, K. Ahmed and J. Hamilton (2002), Factors in Productivity and Unit Cost for
Advanced Machine Guidance, JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND
MANAGEMENT(September/October 2002).
B-88

This paper presents an initial step in seeking to understand just how the adoption of advanced
machine guidance technology, especially global positioning systems, leads to improvements in
performance by the earthwork contractor. Two grading scenarios and one dozing scenario are
examined based upon site observations and interviews with field personnel. Analysis
demonstrated that productivity and unit cost improvements result from a reduction in surveying
support, grade checking, an increase in operational efficiency, and a
Rybka, R. (2006), Making the Grade with GPS, in Dixie Contractor, edited, pp. 10-12.
A Georgia contractor puts new technology to work to boost efficiency, save money and make the
grade on 9.7 miles of new four-lane highway near Swainsboro, Ga.
Schreiber, F., P. Rausch and M. Diegelmann (2008), Use of a Machine Control & Guidance System,
Determination of Excavator Performance, Cost Calculation and Protection Against Damaging of Pipes
and Cables, paper presented at 1st International Conference on Machine Control & Guidance 2008, 2008.
The construction industry is confronted with permanent pressure regarding costs due to: •
increasing expenses, especially those affecting labor and energy; • shortened schedules for
completion of projects; • a highly complex legal system with a growing number of official laws
and standards. Possible solutions include efforts to make engineering construction more efficient
– i.e. by the introduction of industrial production methods to building practices. It is intended to
achieve further improvements of performance. Attention is focused on the earthmoving and road
construction areas. The adoption of GPS-referenced machine guidance systems based on a digital
terrain model (DTM) can significantly contribute to cost reduction. Much progress has been
achieved in these areas in the recent years: the introduction of laser-referenced 1-D machine
guidance systems, as well as 3-D machine guidance, tachymetrically referenced and GNSS-based
guidance systems for graders, bulldozers and excavators. A DTM-based machine guidance
system for excavators using GPS positioning has been developed at the University of Applied
Sciences, Coburg, Department of Civil Engineering.
Interface with SiteManagerRep., Florida.
Equipment
B-89

Jonasson, S., P. S. Dunston, K. Ahmed and J. Hamilton (2002), Factors in Productivity and Unit Cost for
Advanced Machine Guidance, JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND
MANAGEMENT(September/October 2002).
This paper presents an initial step in seeking to understand just how the adoption of advanced
machine guidance technology, especially global positioning systems, leads to improvements in
performance by the earthwork contractor. Two grading scenarios and one dozing scenario are
examined based upon site observations and interviews with field personnel. Analysis
demonstrated that productivity and unit cost improvements result from a reduction in surveying
support, grade checking, an increase in operational efficiency, and a
Kellar, W., P. Roberts and O. Zelzer (2008), A Self Calibrating Attitude Determination System for
Precision Farming using Multiple Low-Cost Complementary Sensors, paper presented at 1st International
A low cost three axis attitude determination system for moving platforms has been developed by
Leica Geosystems that requires a minimal calibration procedure, and has the ability to self-
calibrate for the various biases caused by temperature variation and mounting misalignment.
Sensor fusion techniques are used to combine the data from a high quality survey grade GNSS
receiver with additional cost effective high performance inertial sensors to produce a high rate of
attitude data with low noise and low bias in the form of an attitude sensor module for machine
control and guidance applications. The sensor module has been successfully integrated into a
tractor steering system for precision farming. This paper demonstrates the minimal installation
and calibration procedures for the system, and presents the results from benchmarking the system
in real farm operating conditions.
Nayllor, N. (2006), Development of A Low Cost GPS Guidance System for use in Agriculture,
Dissertation thesis, University of Southern Queensland.
This project developed an accurate, cost effective GPS guidance system and developed
conceptual designs of a hands-free guidance interface for use in the agricultural sector. The
guidance system utilised two Garmin GPS 18-5 receivers to provide position data at a rate of
5Hz. The guidance system was built upon a previous incarnation that utilised Garmin GPS 35
receivers providing position data at a rate of 1Hz. The guidance system currently uses an
indicating arrow on a computer screen to provide guidance information to operators. The
accuracy with which the guidance system could guide an operator in a straight line up a paddock
was quantified by monitoring the path followed by the operators machine out and back along a
defined trajectory and then compared to current industry standards. The accuracy of the guidance
system to guide an operator along parallel paths offset a distance from each other was also
quantified. The ability for the software to offset over different distances was also determined. The
information collected and conclusions drawn will be used to quantify the accuracy of the
B-90

guidance system as a whole for agricultural applications. It is hoped that the conceptual designs
for the hands-free guidance interface will be used to develop a working prototype and be tested
with the guidance system in the near future.
Interface with SiteManagerRep., Florida.
Life-Cycle
Dorée, A. and S. Miller (2008), Is Technology a New Challenge for the Field of Construction
Management?, University of Twente, 2008.
The central theme in Construction Management (CM) and CM research is improving the
performance of construction industry. Much effort and thought is given to improving project
performance. Within CM there is a natural inclination to focus on projects and project
management (PM). Companies in the construction industry also see project management as their
key competence. Both have little appreciation for technologies other than those that support
project management tasks. Technology – other than
Edgar, A. (2006), Building the Future: Right Thinking About BIM and The National BIM Standards
Committee, AEC Bytes.
Heikkilä, R., T. A. Lasky and K. Akin (2009), Construction Automation Process Development -
Advancing the Collaboration between Finland and California, paper presented at 26th International
Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2009), Austin TX, U.S.A., 2009.
This paper presents the total process model of automation for construction and maintenance, with
a focus on roads and bridges. This multi-phase model includes: initial measurements, product
modeling and design, construction control and machine guidance, quality assurance and control,
and lifecyle operations and maintenance. The paper then provides detailed discussion of current
applied research results from Finland and California. The paper gives a summary of the key
findings of Finland and California, noting areas of commonality and areas for further
investigation. Finally, the paper presents plans for further collaborative research between the
University of Oulu and the University of California-Davis.
Spagat, E. (2009), FCC Chairman Warns of 'looming Spectrum Crisis', in My News Way, edited.
B-91

Streett, D. (2006), Business Advantages of Using 3D Technologies Using Technologies, edited.
WALSH, M. W. (2009), More States Start Pension Inquiries
EDUCATION/TRAINING
On-line
3D, P. (2013), Point Clouds and As-Built Conditions edited.
administration, U. d. o. t. f. h. (2012), 3D Modeling for Construction.
Aerial, P. (2013), Phoenix Aerial UAV LiDAR - V2, edited, YouTube.

This is a proof of concept video for the Phoenix AL-2 LiDAR UAV. For more information,
please visit our website at www.phoenix-aerial.com
Autodesk (2011), CI5536: 3D Modeling and 4D Simulation: Mitchell Interchange Construction/Zoo

Interchange Design, SE Freeways, Wisconsin, edited.
Mortenson Construction, in collaboration with our client, used AutoCAD® Civil 3D®,
Autodesk® Revit® Structure, and Navisworks® Manage to execute virtual design and
construction (VDC) for the I-94 North South Freeway project. This project includes updating 35
miles of I-94 from the Illinois state line through the Mitchell Interchange. The goal in using VDC
was to create a 4D simulation showing the construction of three new tunnels which were viewed
as high risk. The team modeled the tunnel structures, surrounding roadways, and utilities to
review constructability and clash detection. Most often used in vertical construction, VDC has
been successfully implemented into practical and effective use on horizontal projects. VDC
encourages collaboration among the project team, and in horizontal construction, also engages
nontraditional audiences such as the public, government, and maintenance professionals. This
class will give a brief overview of the VDC process, tools used for VDC, and the uses and
benefits of VDC in horizontal construction.
Autodesk (2012), CI1889-R: Applied Virtual Design and Construction and Virtual Reality Models,
Methods, and Processes for Civil Infrastructure Projects, edited.
Digital virtual reality (VR) models are being used increasingly in civil infrastructure planning,
design, construction, and maintenance worldwide. Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) or
Building Information Modeling (BIM) processes allow projects to be virtually designed,
analyzed, simulated, and optimized before construction starts, providing benefits of improved
design visualization, cost and time savings, streamlined workflows, better fit to the environment,
more ecological or sustainable solutions, and increased, understandable communication with local
stakeholders. Using VDC or BIM methods, the overall construction process can be optimized
beforehand to reduce costly on-site delays. VDC or BIM is not only about tools; it is primarily
about the processes, methods, and people behind it. This roundtable session provides an
interactive discussion and presentation that shows the overall VDC process using Autodesk® and
Vianova products with successful methods, workflows, and practices.
Burkhalter, S. C. a. (2012), 7th Street Bridge Arch Placement edited.

B-92

Simulation of the placement of arches for the new West Seventh Street signature bridge in Fort
Worth, TX (http://fortworthtexas.gov/SeventhStre...). Animation created by the contractor team
of Sundt Construction and Burkhalter.
Burkhalter, S. C. a. (2012), 7th Street Bridge Arch Rotation edited.

Simulation of the arch rotation, storage and transport process for the new West Seventh Street
signature bridge in Fort Worth, TX (http://fortworthtexas.gov/SeventhStre...). Animation created
by the contractor team of Sundt Construction and Burkhalter.
Burkhalter, S. C. a. (2013), First Arch of the Fort Worth 7th Street Bridge Timelapse edited.
The first arches on the world's first precast network arch bridge being put up at the 7th Street
Bridge in Fort Worth. The bridge will change the landscape of downtown Fort Worth, Texas with
the placement of the first of 12 arches. The one-of-a-kind bridge design will serve as a gateway to
the city's culture district.
Cawley, B. (2013), Civil Integrated Management (CIM), edited.

CIM is the collection, organization, and managed accessibility to accurate data and information
related to a highway facility. The concept may be used by all affected parties for a wide range of
purposes, including planning, environmental, surveying, construction, maintenance, asset
management, and risk assessment.
Dewberry (2014), What is LiDAR?, edited, YouTube.

Director of Remote Sensing Amar Nayegandhi explains the science and technology behind Light
Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) services.
Jahren, C. and D. Schmidt (2008), Feature: Machine Control Goes Academic, Professional Surveyor
Magazine, 28(1), 1.
Lewandowski, A. (2013), Basics of Using LiDAR Data, Lecture 1, edited, YouTube.

Basics of Using LiDAR Data, Lecture 1. From the "Conservation Applications of LiDAR" series.
Lecture slides and further training materials are at z.umn.edu/lidar. Time points: 1:24-about raster
data; 6:05-working with raster data; 8:05-DEMs: digital elevation models

Lecture slides and further training materials are at z.umn.edu/lidar. Time points: 0:40 - What is
LiDAR?; 8:10 - MN LiDAR Data; 13:56 - LiDAR Error and Accuracy.

Lecture slides and further training materials are at z.umn.edu/lidar. Time points: 3:38 - Bare earth
applications; 7:49 - Vegetative applications; 9:55 - Structural applications; 11:03 - Software
edited.
B-93

Noland, R. (2013), Carlson Machine Control New Hardware Presentation 2013, edited, YouTube.
This is an overview presentation of how positioning sensors such as GNSS receivers, axial
sensors (pitch & roll and angularity), etc are applied for applications using 3D Machine Control.
Applications include mining, solid waste landfills, light pile driving such as solar farms,
dredging, earthmoving, 3D drilling, site management and more.
Russell, D., Y. Cho and E. Cylwik (2013), Learning Opportunities and Career Implications of Experience
with Building Information Modeling/Virtual Design and Construction*, Practice Periodical on Structural
Design and Construction, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000191.
This paper aims to identify the impact of Building Information Modeling (BIM) technologies on
construction education and the Architectural, Engineering, Construction, and Facilities
Management (AEC/FM) industry, as well as the career implications for a person proficient in
BIM. To identify the impact of BIM technology, an extensive review of the literature on BIM
utilization in higher education and the AEC/FM industry was conducted. In addition, the lessons
the authors have learned from years of BIM practices were introduced to further identify the
specific benefits and challenges of adopting BIM in Construction and Engineering Management
(CEM) education as well as in the AEC/FM industry, for both vertical and horizontal projects.
Surveys also were conducted to measure the estimating time contractors would save with a BIM-
based estimating strategy compared to a traditional estimating approach. The findings concluded
that personal skill sets in BIM have a significant impact on a student's career opportunities. The
authors also emphasize that first and foremost CEM faculty need ubiquitous access to the latest
technologies as well as accompanying training to produce confident graduates for the AEC/FM
industry, eventually improving students' career opportunities. It is expected that a BIM-based
paradigm shift in the classroom and the AEC/FM industry would be highly achievable when the
identified benefits and challenges of BIM adoption are well known to the educational institutions
and the AEC/FM industry, followed by the implementation of the recommended approaches in
this study.
Sundt (2011), Sundt Construction: Virtual Design and Construction Technology for Heavy Civil Projects
edited, YouTube.
Sundt Construction is a general contractor known for the innovative ways it embraces
construction technology - such as virtual design and construction (VDC), building information
modeling (BIM), parametric estimating and other tools - to further the quality of projects it
delivers, including education, LEED green building, heavy civil projects and more. This video,
which was originally presented to the AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction Conference,
specifically explores how VDC can be used to enhance the efficiency and sustainability of project
work. Some slides from this project come from the Sellwood Bridge heavy civil construction
project in Portland, Oregon, a joint venture of Slayden-Sundt (www.sellwoodbridge.org).
www.sundt.com
B-94

Sundt (2013), Sellwood Bridge Project, Portland, Oregon edited.

Sellwood Bridge Project, Portland, Oregon, USA. Overview of how the 87-year old structure is
being replaced with a new 2-lane steel deck arched bridge using 3D virtual construction and
Autodesk BIM (Building Information Modeling) software. For more information about the
project visit http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/. Special thanks to Eric Cylwik and Ted Aadland
with the Slayden Sundt Joint Venture and Mike Pullen with the Multnomah County
Communications Office for their contributions to the video.
TopconToday (2013), The Complete Topcon Solution, edited.

This video showcases the complete Topcon Solution. Mobile mapping, 3D machine control
systems, integrated software solutions, asset management, and web based jobsite management
systems are rapidly changing world we work in. Find out how Topcon helps you navigate this
universe.
TopconToday (2013), P-32 Asphalt Paver System, edited, YouTube.
TopconToday (2014), Topcon Sitelink3D Enterprise, edited.
Transportation, O. D. o. (2008), ODOT Site Modeler Training GuideRep., Ohio Department of

Transportation.
"Operating Engineers and Other Construction Equipment Operators Career Profile, Video,
Earnings, Education, Prospects - Careers.org." from http://occupations.careers.org/47-2073.00/operating-
engineers-and-other-construction-equipment-operators.
(2006-2013), "International Union of Operating Engineers Local 103 Training." Retrieved 10/28, 2013,
from http://www.iuoe103training.org/.
(IUOE), I. U. O. O. E. "International Union of Operating Engineers." from

http://www.iuoe.org/Training/HeavyEquipmentOperator/tabid/117/Default.aspx.
Over one thousand full- and part-time instructors at our local unions are the heart of IUOE heavy
equipment operator training schools. Experienced and highly skilled journey-level operating
engineers themselves, they’re the ones charged with making sure that future operating engineers
are safe, skilled, productive, and respectful of the equipment.
U.S DOT Federal highway administration . (2012), 3D Modeling for Construction.
Alsobrooks, B. Introduction of 3D Technology & Machine Control Systems, edited.

grading is being done. Key Points for successful 3D operations, Trouble shooting techniques that
Engineers, I. U. o. O. (2008), "Operating Engineers Regional Training Program." Retrieved 10/29, 2013,
from http://www.oetraining.com/?zone=/unionactive/view_page.cfm&page=App.
B-95

Jahren, C. and D. Schmidt (2008), Feature: Machine Control Goes Academic, Professional Surveyor
Magazine, 28(1), 1.
Transportation, O. D. o. (2008), ODOT Site Modeler Training GuideRep., Ohio Department of

Transportation.
Classroom-based
(2009/10/29/15:46:26). Operating Engineers and Other Construction Equipment Operators Career Profile,
Video, Earnings, Education, Prospects - Careers.org. from http://occupations.careers.org/47-
2073.00/operating-engineers-and-other-construction-equipment-operators.
(2006-2013). International Union of Operating Engineers Local 103 Training. Retrieved 10/28, 2013,
from http://www.iuoe103training.org/.
International Union of Operating Engineers. from

http://www.iuoe.org/Training/HeavyEquipmentOperator/tabid/117/Default.aspx.
Over one thousand full- and part-time instructors at our local unions are the heart of IUOE heavy
equipment operator training schools. Experienced and highly skilled journey-level operating
engineers themselves, they’re the ones charged with making sure that future operating engineers
are safe, skilled, productive, and respectful of the equipment.
Alsobrooks, B. Introduction of 3D Technology & Machine Control Systems.

grading is being done. Key Points for successful 3D operations, Troubleshooting techniques that
International Union of Operating Engineers (2008). Operating Engineers Regional Training Program.
Retrieved 10/29, 2013, from http://www.oetraining.com/?zone=/unionactive/view_page.cfm&page=App.
Jahren, C. and D. Schmidt (2008) Feature: Machine Control Goes Academic. Professional Surveyor
Magazine 28, 1
Ohio DOT (2008). ODOT Site Modeler Training Guide, Ohio Department of Transportation.
U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2012). 3D Modeling for

Construction.
REAL PROJECT SAMPLE
(2011), I-680, edited.
B-96

Group of visual materials used in a highway construction project; where 3D Modeling techniques
were implemented.
3D, P. (2013), Point Clouds and As-Built Conditions edited.
Aerial, P. (2013), Phoenix Aerial UAV LiDAR - V2, edited, YouTube.

This is a proof of concept video for the Phoenix AL-2 LiDAR UAV. For more information,
please visit our website at www.phoenix-aerial.com
Burkhalter, S. C. a. (2012), 7th Street Bridge Arch Placement edited.

Simulation of the placement of arches for the new West Seventh Street signature bridge in Fort
Worth, TX (http://fortworthtexas.gov/SeventhStre...). Animation created by the contractor team
of Sundt Construction and Burkhalter.
Burkhalter, S. C. a. (2012), 7th Street Bridge Arch Rotation edited.

Simulation of the arch rotation, storage and transport process for the new West Seventh Street
signature bridge in Fort Worth, TX (http://fortworthtexas.gov/SeventhStre...). Animation created
by the contractor team of Sundt Construction and Burkhalter.
Burkhalter, S. C. a. (2013), First Arch of the Fort Worth 7th Street Bridge Timelapse edited.
The first arches on the world's first precast network arch bridge being put up at the 7th Street
Bridge in Fort Worth. The bridge will change the landscape of downtown Fort Worth, Texas with
the placement of the first of 12 arches. The one-of-a-kind bridge design will serve as a gateway to
the city's culture district.
Construction, S. Surveying Success with BIM: Autodesk BIM solutions help untangle a highway junction
in Arizona., edited.
Sundt Construction, Inc. (www.sundt.com) uses Autodesk ® BIM solutions for the virtual design
and construction of its vertical construction projects, such as office buildings, as well as its
horizontal infrastructure projects, such as roads and bridges. Sundt is currently using BIM to help
rebuild an outdated, complicated highway interchange in Arizona. The $51 million project is
located about 65 miles north of Phoenix, at the junction of Interstate 17 and State Route 69.
Approximately 40,000 vehicles per day use the nearly 50-year-old Cordes Junction interchange,
and its current configuration mixes local and through traffic, causing frequent congestion and
delays. The project will create two separate interchanges—one for through traffic and one for
local traffic—and includes the construction of seven bridges and numerous new ramps, as well as
realigning, widening, and paving several associated streets. Sundt and its joint venture partner on
this project (Vastco, Inc.) are the project’s Construction Manager at Risk (CM at Risk)
Edgar, A. (2006), Building the Future: Right Thinking About BIM and The National BIM Standards
Committee, AEC Bytes.
Gutierrez, B., R. Luck, W. Mohr, W. Elqaq, M. Paddock, C. Johnson, L. Parve, J. Zogg, K. Flierl and S.
Zodrow (2012), CIM-Civil Integrated Management:Best Practices & Lessons LearnedWisDOTSE, edited,
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
A detailed presentation describing real cases for implementing 3D technologies in construction
and Computer Aided Design (CAD).
B-97

LeMay, J. D. (2013), Construction on US-127 north of Lansing, edited, Michigan.
Miller, N., B. Smith and K. Nicholson (2012), A Comparison of Mobile Scanning to a Total Station
Survey at the I-35 and IA 92 Interchange in Warren County, IowaRep. RB22-011, 22 pp, Iowa
The purpose of this project was to investigate the potential for collecting and using data from
mobile terrestrial laser scanning (MTLS) technology that would reduce the need for traditional
survey methods for the development of highway improvement projects at the Iowa Department of
Transportation (Iowa DOT). The primary interest in investigating mobile scanning technology is
to minimize the exposure of field surveyors to dangerous high volume traffic situations. Issues
investigated were cost, timeframe, accuracy, contracting specifications, data capture extents, data
extraction capabilities and data storage issues associated with mobile scanning. The project area
selected for evaluation was the I-35/IA 92 interchange in Warren County, Iowa. This project
covers approximately one mile of I-35, one mile of IA 92, 4 interchange ramps, and bridges
within these limits. Delivered LAS and image files for this project totaled almost 31GB. There is
nearly a 6-fold increase in the size of the scan data after post-processing. Camera data, when
enabled, produced approximately 900MB of imagery data per mile using a 2-camera, 5 megapixel
system. A comparison was done between 1823 points on the pavement that were surveyed by
Iowa DOT staff using a total station and the same points generated through the MTLS process.
The data acquired through the MTLS and data processing met the Iowa DOT specifications for
engineering survey. A list of benefits and challenges is included in the detailed report. With the
success of this project, it is anticipate that additional projects will be scanned for the Iowa DOT
for use in the development of highway improvement projects.
Noland, R. (2012), BNI Coal Invests in Positioning Technology, edited.

BNI Coal discusses their investment in 3D machine control and fleet management and how they
have applied the technology thus far. This investment has increased productivity while reducing
their carbon footprint. Coal provides the world with over 40% of its electricity meeting affordable
energy needs while harmonizing with the environment.
edited.
Noland, R. (2013), Dredging in Zeebrugge - Carlson Machine Control DredgeRover™ Application

Video, edited, YouTube.
Peter DeMoor of Dredging International/DEME, discusses their "best of breed" approach for their
positioning systems for over 50 of their machines. DredgeRover™ is flexible and can be
configured for an array of excavators and cable cranes. For more information, please visit
B-98

www.carlsonmachinecontrol.com or email machine control@carlson.com. More links in the

video for Septentrio and MGB Tech.
Noland, R. (2013), Position Partners Mining Machine Control & Mine Site Solutions, edited, YouTube.
In this 10 minute interview, we sit down with Garry MacPhail, cofounder & director at Australia's
Position Partners, to discuss their new initiatives for mining machine control, fleet management,
material management and most importantly training and service. Position Partners exclusively
offers Carlson Machine Control for mine site management and 3D machine control for dozers,
diggers, haul trucks, bucket wheel excavators, draglines, surface miners and a much more. Other
applications served with Carlson Machine Control include solid waste landfills, dredging, 3D
drilling and solar panel pile driving. Enjoy the video and contact www.positionpartners.com.au
for more information.
Ramsdell, A., R. Arulraj and M. Daum MIGRATING AN ENTERPRISE GIS-A SUCCESS STORY.
SNYDER & ASSOCIATES, I. JTD, edited.

A group of documents, including agreements, contracts, and actual projects conducted by
SNYDER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Sundt Virtual preconstruction with BIM for Infrastructure: Sundt Construction uses Autodesk BIM
solutions to help construct a signature bridge in Texas. edited.
For many years, Sundt Construction (www.sundt.com) has been at the forefront of using Building
Information Modeling (BIM) solutions for the virtual design and construction of its vertical
construction projects such as office buildings. Now the firm’s Heavy Civil division has
transferred lessons learned on those projects to its horizontal infrastructure projects, using
Autodesk ® BIM solutions for the virtual design and construction of highways and bridges. Sundt
recently used BIM to help devise the best construction solution for the renovation of a high-
profile bridge in Fort Worth, Texas. The reconstructed bridge, designed by the Texas Department
of Transportation (TxDOT), will be built on the site of the current bridge and will feature 10-foot
pedestrian walkways and 12 precast post-tensioned concrete arches that run the length of both
sides of the structure. Each arch will be 24 feet tall, 163 feet long, and weigh more than 300 tons.
Polished stainless steel within the arches and bridge superstructure will be illuminated at night
with embedded lighting. Sundt is the general contractor on this $24.2 million project and Sundt’s
concrete division is self-performing all of the concrete work. Sundt Virtual proof with help from
BIM for Infrastructure: Autodesk BIM solutions help prove feasibility of proposed construction
method of a replacement bridge in Portland, Oregon, edited.
Sundt Construction was at the forefront of using Building Information Modeling (BIM) for
vertical construction and is now using Autodesk ® BIM solutions for the virtual design and
construction of its horizontal infrastructure projects such as highways and bridges. The firm is
currently using BIM software to reconstruct an aging bridge in Portland, Oregon. When the
Sellwood Bridge opened in 1925, it was a welcome upgrade from the ferry service that had
shuttled passengers across Portland’s Willamette River. But today the narrow two-lane bridge has
fallen into disrepair and scores only a two out of 100 on a federal bridge sufficiency rating scale.
Buses and trucks are restricted from using the bridge and the 87-year old structure was designed
without seismic considerations. Multnomah County is replacing the bridge with a new 2-lane
steel deck arched bridge, complete with biking and pedestrian lanes. Sundt and its joint venture
partner Slayden Construction are the Construction Manager/General Contractor on this project.
B-99

Sundt (2013), Innovative Technology Will Improve Accuracy and Efficiency of Phoenix Light Rail
Project.
Sundt (2013), Sellwood Bridge Project, Portland, Oregon edited.

Sellwood Bridge Project, Portland, Oregon, USA. Overview of how the 87-year old structure is
being replaced with a new 2-lane steel deck arched bridge using 3D virtual construction and
Autodesk BIM (Building Information Modeling) software. For more information about the
project visit http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ Special thanks to Eric Cylwik and Ted Aadland with
the Slayden Sundt Joint Venture and Mike Pullen with the Multnomah County Communications
Office for their contributions to the video.
TopconToday (2013), The Complete Topcon Solution, edited.

This video showcases the complete Topcon Solution. Mobile mapping, 3D machine control
systems, integrated software solutions, asset management, and web based jobsite management
systems are rapidly changing world we work in. Find out how Topcon helps you navigate this
universe.
TopconToday (2013), P-32 Asphalt Paver System, edited, YouTube.
TopconToday (2014), Topcon Sitelink3D Enterprise, edited.
Unit, M. D. o. T. P. a. V. S. Latson Road Interchange project on I-96 in Livingston County Michigan,

edited.
Various pictures from MDOT’s Latson Road Interchange project on I-96 in Livingston County
Michigan. The photos depict AMG systems and survey control points.
Unit, M. D. o. T. P. a. V. S. US-127 widening project in Ingham County Michigan, edited.

Various pictures from MDOT’s US-127 widening project in Ingham County Michigan. The
photos depict AMG system in operation.
B-100

APPENDIX C: EXISTING AMG SPECIFICATIONS IN THE

UNITED STATES

CONTENTS
Requirements for Electronic Data to be Supplied to Construction (Draft Proposal), AASHTO

Technology Implementation Group (06/04/2007) ......................................................................1
Machine Control Grading – Special Provisions 5-1.26, District 11, California Department of
Transportation (2007)..................................................................................................................4
Guidelines for Implementing Automated Machine Guidance, California Department of
Transportation (June 30, 2009) ...................................................................................................6
Implementation of Automated Machine Guidance for Ongoing Projects (Memorandum)
California Department of Transportation (November 2013) ....................................................15
Survey Control of Grading by GPS or RTS Methods – Revision of Section 625, Pilot Project
Special Provision, Colorado Department of Transportation (November 03, 2008) .................18
Design Guidance Memorandum (DGM) 1-19 Machine Control, Delaware Department of
Transportation (July 30, 2007) ..................................................................................................22
Draft specification for Machine Control – Section 763637, Delaware Department of
Transportation (March 23, 2009) ..............................................................................................25
Draft specification for Allowing “Stakeless Excavation” on a Highway Contract – Section
105.08 Construction Stakes, Lines, and Grades, Indiana Department of Transportation .........32
Developmental Specifications for Global Positioning System Machine Control Grading DS-
01103, Iowa Department of Transportation (Effective Date September 18, 2007) ..................36
Special provisions for slipform paving system machine control SP-010391, Iowa Department of
Transportation (April 21, 2009) ................................................................................................41
Developmental Specifications for PCC Paving 3-D Machine Control DS-12025 (NEW), Iowa
Department of Transportation (Effective Date October 16, 2012) ...........................................46
Part III Technical Requirements, Section 107 Construction Stakeout Standard Specifications for
Construction and Materials, Maryland State Highway Administration (July 2008) ................49
Special Provision for Group 3: Digital Terrain Model/Digital Elevation Model Products and
Services, Minnesota Department of Transportation (July 01, 2001) ........................................54
Special Provision for Automated Machine Guidance Systems SP 907-699-1, Mississippi
Department of Transportation (August 24, 2010) .....................................................................59
Specifications of Computer Deliverable Contract Plans, Missouri Department of Transportation
(June 01, 2009) ..........................................................................................................................64
Waiver of Liability, ROW\Forms\Utl\909, Montana Department of Transportation (Revised
November 2009) .......................................................................................................................70
Preparation and transfer of electronic engineering data (engineering bulletin EB 05-023), New
York State Department of Transportation (April 05, 2005)......................................................72
Engineering Instruction 06-007: Revision to Standard Specifications: Section 105-10, Survey
and Stakeout; Section 625, Survey Operations, Row Markers & Permanent Survey Markers
(engineering instruction 06-007), New York State Department of Transportation (April 03,
2006) .........................................................................................................................................81
Survey Operations, Row and Survey Markers, and GPS Inspection Units –Revision to Standard
Specifications Section 625 (EI 08-03X), New York State Department of Transportation (May
07, 2009) ...................................................................................................................................92
Automated Machine Guidance – Special Provisions for Contract 201918 (R-2606B) Addendum
3: “US 311 Bypass from north of Spencer Road (SR 1929) to US 220”, North Carolina
C-i

Department of Transportation (June 19, 2008) .......................................................................119

Automated Machine Guidance – Special Provisions Draft, North Carolina Department of
Transportation (June 17, 2008) ...............................................................................................136
Machine Control Grading Section 1-05.9 Draft Specification, Machine Control Project Delivery
Memorandum # 08-01, Washington State Department of Transportation (April 07, 2008)...139
Construction Layout Stakes for Electronic Data, West Virginia Department of Transportation
(2010) ......................................................................................................................................148
Construction Staking Subgrade, Item 650.4500 (Special Provision), Wisconsin State Department
of Transportation .....................................................................................................................152
CMM 7.18 GPS Machine Guidance, Wisconsin State Department of Transportation ...............156
Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS Specification, Wyoming Department of Transportation ......160
C-ii

Requirements for Electronic Data to be Supplied to Construction (Draft Proposal),

AASHTO Technology Implementation Group (06/04/2007)
C-1

Machine Control Grading – Special Provisions 5-1.26, District 11, California Department
of Transportation (2007)
C-4

5-1.__ MACHINE CONTROL GRADING
The Contractor may utilize grading equipment controlled with a Global Positioning System
(GPS) machine control grading system for the grading and construction of the roadway, except
for final grading.
The Contractor may use any type of GPS machine control equipment and system that results in
achieving the existing grading requirements. All equipment required to accomplish GPS
machine control grading shall be able to generate end results that meet the Standard
Specifications.
If the Contractor chooses to use machine control grading, the Contractor shall furnish a written
request for the electronic information within 10 working days after the approval of the contract.
The Engineer will have 10 working days to furnish the Contractor with the electronic
information. The electronic information (Machine Control Surface Model file) will be provided
to the Contractor in ASCII, Land XML and VRS formats.
Attention is directed to "Lines and Grades" of these special provisions. The Engineer will set
stakes or marks after notification from the Contractor is received. The Contractor shall provide
controls for the machine control grading system.
The Contractor shall perform the necessary conversion of the files for its selected GPS machine
control system. The Contractor shall independently ensure that the electronic information will
function in its GPS machine control system.
The Department does not guarantee that its electronic information is directly compatible with the
system proposed by the Contractor. Any manipulation of the electronic information by the
Contractor shall be taken at the Contractor’s own risk. The Contractor shall meet the same
accuracy requirements as conventional grading construction. Grading work shall conform to the
requirements in "Earthwork" of these special provisions.
Updated electronic data will be provided when in the opinion of the Engineer, significant
changes to the plans affect the final grading surface, otherwise grading changes will be addressed
through traditional survey staking.
The electronic information provided is available solely for the convenience of the Contractor. It
is expressly understood and agreed that the Department assumes no responsibility in respect to
the sufficiency or accuracy of the electronic information. Use of the electronic information shall
be subject to all of the conditions and limitations set forth in Section 2-1.03, "Examination of
Plans, Specifications, Contract, and Site of Work," of the Standard Specifications and these
special provisions.
Payment
Full compensation for the use of GPS machine control grading, including converting the
electronic information at any time during construction, shall be considered as included in the
contract prices paid for the various items of earthwork involved and no additional compensation
will be allowed therefor.
C-5

Guidelines for Implementing Automated Machine Guidance, California Department of

Transportation (June 30, 2009)
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/landsurveys/SurveysManual/AutomatedMachineGuidanceGuideli
nes7_5_09.pdf
C-6

Implementation of Automated Machine Guidance for Ongoing Projects (Memorandum)

California Department of Transportation (November 2013)
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/CPDirectives/cpd13-10.pdf
C-15

Survey Control of Grading by GPS or RTS Methods – Revision of Section 625, Pilot
Project Special Provision, Colorado Department of Transportation (November 03, 2008)
http://www.coloradodot.info/business/manuals/survey/chapter-
6/chapter6appendix/Revision%20625%20Machine%20Control.doc/view
C-18

Pilot project special provision: 625gpsrts

11.3.2008
REVISION OF SECTION 625

SURVEY CONTROL OF GRADING BY GPS OR RTS METHODS
Section 625 of the Standard specifications is hereby revised for this project as follows:
Subsection 625.01 shall include the following:
The Contractor may use grading equipment controlled by Global Positioning System (GPS) machine
control grading techniques or Robotic Total Station (RTS) equipment to control the construction of
subgrade, subbase, base course and other roadway structure materials and in construction of ditches and
other planned excavations and embankment designated on the project.
When used, equipment required to accomplish GPS or RTS machine control grading shall be provided by
the Contractor and shall be able to generate end results that meet the Contract requirements.
When the Contractor uses automated controlled equipment, the Contractor shall furnish a GPS Rover or
RTS equipment to the Engineer for review of the work. With the equipment, the Contractor shall provide
eight hours of formal training on the use of the GPS or RTS and the Contractor’s systems to CDOT
project personnel prior to beginning any grading. This training is for the purpose of providing CDOT
project personnel with an understanding of the equipment, software, and electronic data being used by the
Contractor. The GPS Rover or RTS equipment will be returned to the Contractor upon completion and
acceptance of the final as constructed grade report.
The Contractor may use any type of approved GPS or RTS equipment that achieves the horizontal and
vertical tolerances specified in the CDOT Survey Manual.
Add subsection 625.051 immediately following subsection 625.05 as follows:
625.051 Use of GPS or RTS Equipment in Lieu of Conventional Staking. The plans may indicate
areas of the project where CDOT is providing electronic surface models. The Contractor shall convert
electronic data provided by CDOT for these areas into the format required by the Contractor's system and
equipment at the Contractor's expense. Work performed using GPS or RTS equipment shall conform to
the plan typical sections. The remaining areas shall be constructed with conventional construction survey
techniques and stakes unless the Contractor chooses to develop and submit a Digital Terrain Model
(DTM) to the Engineer for review. The Contractor shall develop the DTM using the Contract Documents
and any CDOT furnished DTM data. Changes in the given electronic data shall not be made unless
approved by the Engineer in writing. To use any CDOT furnished DTM data, the Contractor shall release
CDOT and its employees from all liability for the accuracy of the data and its conformance to the
Contract.
The Contractor shall perform three 500 foot test sections with the selected GPS or RTS system to
demonstrate that the Contractor has the capabilities, knowledge, equipment, and experience to properly
operate the system and meet acceptable tolerances. If the Contractor fails to demonstrate this ability, the
Contractor shall construct the project using conventional surveying and staking methods.
The Engineer may review the Contractor’s machine control grading results, surveying calculations,
records, field procedures, and actual staking at any time. If the Engineer determines the work is not
meeting the required horizontal and vertical tolerances, the Contractor shall redo such work to the
requirements of the Contract at the Contractor's expense.
C-19


11.3.2008

The Contractor shall provide stakes at all alignment control points, at every 500 foot stationing, and
where required for coordination activities involving environmental agencies and utility companies at the
Contractor's expense.
At least one week prior to the Preconstruction conference, the Contractor shall submit to the Engineer, for
review, a written GPS or RTS machine control grading work plan which shall include:
(1) Equipment type

(2) Control software manufacturer
(3) The control software version
(4) Primary survey control to be used along with the locations of the GPS base stations used for
broadcasting differential correction data to the rover units.
Contractor delays due to operating the GPS or RTS machine control system will not result in adjustment
to the bid price or quantity of any construction items or be justification for granting any type of contract
extension.
When GPS or RTS methods are used for any of the construction surveying, a Professional Land Surveyor
(PLS) or Professional Engineer (PE) licensed in Colorado shall be provided by the Contractor to furnish
an interim earthwork quantity report to the Engineer prior to 20 percent completion of the planned
earthwork in any phase. Prior to beginning work on any subsequent operation the Contractor’s PLS or PE
shall certify in writing to the Engineer that the final grade is within specified tolerance.
Delete subsection 625.12 and replace with the following:
625.12 Construction surveying will not be measured, but will be paid for on a lump sum basis, regardless
of whether conventional surveying, GPS, RTS, or a combination of these methods is used.
When GPS or RTS methods are used for any of the construction surveying, the Contract lump sum price
bid shall include full compensation for all such surveying work including but not limited to:
(1) Materials
(2) Equipment
(3) Labor
(4) Office work - preparing the electronic data files for use in the Contactor’s machine control grading
system, developing or building a DTM to facilitate the GPS machine control grading system, and all
other calculations required to complete the work.
(5) Test section as specified by the Engineer.
(6) Training for CDOT project personnel,
(7) Final as constructed grade report
*************************************************************************************
INSTRUCTIONS TO DESIGNERS (delete instructions and symbols from final draft):
This is a pilot project special provision that is to be used only on selected projects. Submit proposed pilot
projects to the Staff Survey Coordinator for review early in design prior to using this special provision.
C-20


11.3.2008

Include this special provision on projects on which a digital terrain model (DTM) has been developed for
all or part of the work and the Contractor will be allowed to use Global Positioning System (GPS)
machine control grading techniques or Robotic Total Station (RTS) equipment to control construction.
The plans should clearly show the areas where a DTM has been developed. List the DTM in the special
provision, Revision of Section 102 – Project Plans and Other Data, as part of the computer information
available.
C-21

Design Guidance Memorandum (DGM) 1-19 Machine Control, Delaware Department of

Transportation (July 30, 2007)
http://www.deldot.gov/information/pubs_forms/manuals/dgm/pdf/1-19_machine_control.pdf
C-22

Draft specification for Machine Control – Section 763637, Delaware Department of

Transportation (March 23, 2009)
http://www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov/files/technology/3d-modeling/DelDOT-Machine-Control-Spec.pdf
C-25

763637- Machine Control Grading
Description:
Systems (GPS).
The Contractor may utilize grading equipment equipped with GPS machine control systems to
perform the excavation and embankment for the project as indicated on the plans. Use of this
procedure and equipment is intended for grading the subgrade surface; it is not intended for the
use in constructing final surface grades.
The plans indicate the areas of the project where roadway construction may be accomplished
with GPS machine control techniques. All other areas shall be constructed with conventional
survey techniques unless the contractor chooses to build the required surface model to facilitate
GPS machine control grading for those areas at no additional cost to the Department.
The Contractor may use any manufacturer’s GPS machine control equipment and system that
results in achieving the grading requirements outlined in section 202 of the standard
specifications. The Contractor shall convert the electronic data provided by the Department into
the format required by their system. The Department will only provide the information outlined
in this document and no additional electronic data will be provided.
The Contractor shall perform three 500 foot test sections with the selected GPS system to demonstrate
that the Contractor has the capabilities, knowledge, equipment, and experience to properly operate the
system and meet acceptable tolerances. The engineer will evaluate and make the determination. If the
Contractor fails to demonstrate this ability, the Contractor shall construct the project using conventional
surveying and staking methods.
Materials:
All equipment required to perform GPS machine control grading, including equipment needed to
verify the work, shall be provided by the Contractor and shall be able to generate end results that
are in accordance with the requirements of Division 200 – EARTHWORK of the Standard
Specifications.
Construction:
a. DelDOT Responsibilities:
1. The Department will set initial vertical and horizontal control points in the field
for the project as indicated in the contract documents, (plans set). If the contractor
needs to establish new control points they shall be traversed from existing control
points and verified to be accurate by conventional surveying techniques.
2. The Department will provide the project specific localized coordinate system.
C-26

3. The Department will provide data in an electronic format to the Contractor.
a. The information provided shall not be considered a representation of

actual conditions to be encountered during construction. Furnishing this
information does not relieve the Contractor from the responsibility of
making an investigation of conditions to be encountered including, but not
limited to site visits, and basing the bid on information obtained from
these investigations, and the professional interpretations and judgments of
the Contractor. The Contractor shall assume the risk of error if the
information is used for any purpose for which the information is not
intended.
b. Any assumption the Contractor makes from this electronic information

shall be at their risk. If the contractor chooses to develop their own digital
terrain model the Contractor shall be fully responsible for all cost,
liability, accuracy and delays.
c. The Department will develop and provide electronic data to the Contractor
for their use as part of the contract documents. The Contractor shall
independently ensure that the electronic data will function in their machine
control grading system.
4. The Files that are provided were originally created with the computer software
applications MicroStation (CADD software) and INROADS (civil engineering
software). The data files will be provided in the native formats and other software
formats described below. The contractor shall perform necessary conversion of
the files for their selected grade control equipment. The Department will furnish
the Contractor with the following electronic files:
a. CAD files
i. Inroads- Existing digital terrain model (.DTM)
ii. Inroads- Proposed digital terrain model (.DTM)
iii. Microstation Existing and proposed surface elements – triangles
b. Alignment Data Files:

i. ASCII Format
5. The Engineer shall perform spot checks of the Contractor’s machine control
grading results, surveying calculations, records, field procedures, and actual
staking. If the Engineer determines that the work is not being performed in a
manner that will assure accurate results, the Engineer may order the contractor to
redo such work to the requirements of the contract documents, at no additional
cost to the Department.
C-27

B. Contractor’s Responsibites
1. The Contractor shall provide the Engineer with a GPS rover and Automatic Level, for use
during the duration of the contract. At the end of the contract, the GPS rover and
Automatic Level will be returned to the Contractor. The Contractor shall provide a total
of 8 hours of formal training on the Contractor’s GPS machine control system to the
Engineer and up to three additional Department appointees.
2. The Contractor shall review and apply the data provided by the Department to perform
GPS machine control grading.
3. The Contractor shall bear all costs, including but not limited to the cost of actual
reconstruction of work, that may be incurred due to application of GPS machine control
grading techniques. Grade elevation errors and associated corrections including quantity
adjustments resulting from the contractor’s use of GPS machine control shall be at no
cost to the Department.
4. The Contractor shall convert the electronic data provided by the Department into a format
compatible with their system.
5. The Contractor understands that manipulation of the electronic data provided by the
Department shall be performed at their own risk.
6. The Contractor shall check and if necessary, recalibrate their GPS machine control
system at the beginning of each workday in accordance with the manufactures
recommendations, or more frequently as needed to meet the requirements of the project.
7. The Contractor shall meet the accuracy requirements for the subbase placement as
detailed in the Standard Specifications.
8. The Contractor shall establish secondary control points at appropriate intervals and at
locations along the length of the project. These points shall be outside the project limits
and/or where work is performed. These points shall be at intervals not to exceed 1000
feet. The horizontal position of these points shall be determined by conventional survey
traverse and adjustments from the original baseline control points. The conventional
traverse shall meet or exceed the Department Standards. The elevation of these control
points shall be established using differential leveling from the project benchmarks,
forming a closed loop. A copy of all new control point information including closure report
shall be provided and approved by the Engineer prior to construction activities. The
contractor shall be responsible for all errors resulting from their efforts and shall correct
deficiencies to the satisfaction of the Engineer and at no additional cost to the
Department.
9. The Contractor shall provide stakes at all alignment control points, at every 500 foot
stationing, and where required for coordination activities involving environmental
agencies and utility companies at the Contractor’s expense. Work that is done solely for
utility companies and that is beyond the work performed under item 763501 -
C-28

Construction Engineering and item 763637 - Construction Engineering (GPS) Machine

Control Grading shall follow and be paid for under item 763597 -Utility Construction
Engineering. The engineer must approve all requests for item 763597 -Utility
Construction Engineering, before the work begins.
10. The Contractor shall at minimum set hubs at the top of finished grade at all hinge points
on the cross section at 500 foot intervals on the main line and at least 4 cross sections on
side roads and ramps as directed by the engineer or as shown on the plans. Placement of a
minimum of 4 control points outside the limits of disturbance for the excavation of
borrow pits, Stormwater Management Ponds, wetland mitigation sites etc. These control
points shall be established using conventional survey methods for use by the Engineer to
check the accuracy of the construction.
11. The Contractor shall preserve all reference points and monuments that are identified and
established by the Engineer for the project. If the Contractor fails to preserve these items
the Contractor shall reestablish them at no additional cost to the Department.
12. The Contractor shall provide control points and conventional grades stakes at critical
points such as, but not limited to, PC’s, PT’s, superelevation points, and other critical
points required for the construction of drainage and roadway structures.
13. If the Contractor makes any changes to the final surface during construction then he/she
shall provide the Engineer with electronic as-built construction data for the final roadway
surface in DTM format compatible with the latest version of Inroads Survey Select Cadd.
14. No less than 2 weeks before the scheduled preconstruction meeting, the Contractor shall
submit to the Engineer for review a written machine control grading work plan which
shall include the equipment type, control software manufacture and version, and
proposed location of the local GPS base station used for broadcasting differential
correction data to rover units.
15. The Contractor shall follow the guidelines set forth in the “Geometric Geodetic Accuracy
Standards and Specifications for Using GPS Relative Positioning Techniques” and follow
a minimum of Second Order Class 1, (2-I) classification standards.
Automated equipment operations have a high reliance on accurate control networks from which
to take measurements, establish positions, and verify locations and features. Therefore, a strong
contract control network in the field which is the same or is strongly integrated with the project
control used during the design of the contract is essential to the successful use of this technology
with the proposed Digital Terrain Model (DTM). Consistent and well designed site calibration
for all machine control operations (as described below under Contract Control Plan) are required
to ensure the quality of the contract deliverables. The Contract Control Plan is intended to
document which horizontal and vertical control will be held for these operations. Continued
incorporation of the CORS Stations (if included in the initial project control) is essential to
maintaining the integrity of positional locations and elevations of features.
C-29

Contract Control Plan:
The Contractor shall develop and submit a Contract Control Plan for all contracts which include
item 763637 Construction Engineering (GPS) Machine Control Grading. Contract control
includes all primary and secondary horizontal and vertical control which will be used for the
construction contract. Upon the contractor’s completion of the initial survey reconnaissance and
control verification, but prior to beginning primary field operations, the Contractor shall submit a
Contract Control Plan document (signed and sealed by the Delaware licensed Land Surveyor or
Delaware Professional Engineer who oversees its preparation) for acceptance by the Engineer.
1. A control network diagram of all existing horizontal and vertical control recovered in the
field as contract control.
2. Include a summary of the calculated closures of the existing control network, and which
control has been determined to have been disturbed or out of tolerance from its original
positioning.
3. An explanation of which horizontal and vertical control points will be held for construction
purposes. If necessary include all adjustments which may have been made to achieve required
closures.
4. An explanation of what horizontal and vertical control (including base stations) was set to
accomplish the required stakeout or automated machine operation. Include how the position of
these new control points was determined.
5. Describe the proposed method and technique (technology and quality control) for utilizing
the control to establish the existing and/or proposed feature location and to verify the completed
feature location and/or measured quantity.
6. A listing of the horizontal and vertical datums to be used and the combined factor to be used
to account for ellipsoidal reduction factor and grid scale factor.
7. If a Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) Network was used to establish the
initial control for design of this contract, or if the Contractor proposes to use CORS with any
construction operation, the survey reconnaissance and control verification shall include verifying
the contract control and shall report the accuracy results back in the Contract Control Plan.
8. If the Contractor chooses to use machine control as a method of measuring and controlling
excavation, fill, material placement or grading operations as a method of measuring and
controlling excavation, fill, material placement or grading operations, the Contractor Control
Plan shall include the method by which the automated machine guidance system will initially be
site calibrated to both the horizontal and vertical contract control, and shall describe the method
and frequency of the calibration to ensure consistent positional results.
C-30

Method of Measurement
No measurement.
Basis of Payment
No payment.
C-31

Draft specification for Allowing “Stakeless Excavation” on a Highway Contract – Section

105.08 Construction Stakes, Lines, and Grades, Indiana Department of Transportation
http://www.in.gov/dot/div/contracts/standards/book/sep13/2014Master.pdf
C-32

Developmental Specifications for Global Positioning System Machine Control Grading DS-
01103, Iowa Department of Transportation (Effective Date September 18, 2007)
http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/IOWA_DS-01103.pdf
C-36

Special provisions for slipform paving system machine control SP-010391, Iowa
Department of Transportation (April 21, 2009)
C-41

Developmental Specifications for PCC Paving 3-D Machine Control DS-12025 (NEW),
Iowa Department of Transportation (Effective Date October 16, 2012)
C-46

Part III Technical Requirements, Section 107 Construction Stakeout Standard

Specifications for Construction and Materials, Maryland State Highway Administration
(July 2008)
http://www.marylandroads.com/ohd/part3.pdf
C-49

Special Provision for Group 3: Digital Terrain Model/Digital Elevation Model Products
and Services, Minnesota Department of Transportation (July 01, 2001)
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/surveying/pdf/photospecs/digter/DIGITAL_TERRAIN_MODEL_C
OMPILATION_fine_JUL_2001.pdf
C-54

Special Provision for Automated Machine Guidance Systems SP 907-699-1, Mississippi

Department of Transportation (August 24, 2010)
http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Contract%20Administration/DesignBuild/PROPOSED%20IMPROVEME
NTS%20TO%20INTERSTATE%2055/RFP%20I-55%20Pike%20and%20Lincoln.pdf
C-59

Specifications of Computer Deliverable Contract Plans, Missouri Department of

http://www.missouriruralpublictransportation.org/business/documents/ComputerDeliverableCont
ractPlans060109.pdf
C-64

Waiver of Liability, ROW\Forms\Utl\909, Montana Department of Transportation

(Revised November 2009)
https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/rw/external/forms/909.pdf
C-70

Preparation and transfer of electronic engineering data (engineering bulletin EB 05-023),

New York State Department of Transportation (April 05, 2005)
https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/consultants/forms-publications-and-
instructions/engineering-information-issuance-system/eb-repository/eb05023.pdf
C-72

Engineering Instruction 06-007: Revision to Standard Specifications: Section 105-10,

Survey and Stakeout; Section 625, Survey Operations, Row Markers & Permanent Survey
Markers (engineering instruction 06-007), New York State Department of Transportation
(April 03, 2006)
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/main/business-center/consultants/forms-publications-
and-instructions/engineering-information-issuance-system/ei-repository/ei06007.pdf
C-81

Survey Operations, Row and Survey Markers, and GPS Inspection Units –Revision to
Standard Specifications Section 625 (EI 08-03X), New York State Department of
Transportation (May 07, 2009)
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/mexis_app.pa_ei_eb_admin_app.show_pdf?id=10266
C-92

Automated Machine Guidance – Special Provisions for Contract 201918 (R-2606B)

Addendum 3: “US 311 Bypass from north of Spencer Road (SR 1929) to US 220”, North
Carolina Department of Transportation (June 19, 2008)
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/design%20build%20program/r-
2606b/rfp%20addendum%203.pdf
C-119

Automated Machine Guidance – Special Provisions Draft, North Carolina Department of

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/design%20build%20program/r-
2123ce/rfp%20industry%20draft.pdf
C-136

Machine Control Grading Section 1-05.9 Draft Specification, Machine Control Project
Delivery Memorandum # 08-01, Washington State Department of Transportation (April
07, 2008)
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/ProjectDev/ProjectDeliveryMemos/Memo08-
01.pdf
C-139

Construction Layout Stakes for Electronic Data, West Virginia Department of

Transportation (2010)
http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/contractadmin/specifications/SpecComit/SpecMeeti
ngs/specmeetyear/2011/Documents/20110214_PDFs/639_20101207_dd_639.3ConstructionLayo
utElectronicMethod_SProj_1.pdf
C-148

Construction Staking Subgrade, Item 650.4500 (Special Provision), Wisconsin State

http://roadwaystandards.dot.wi.gov/standards/stndspec/ss-06-50.pdf#ss650
C-152

CMM 7.18 GPS Machine Guidance, Wisconsin State Department of Transportation
http://roadwaystandards.dot.wi.gov/standards/cmm/cm-07-18.pdf
C-156

Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS Specification, Wyoming Department of Transportation
http://www.dot.state.wy.us/files/live/sites/wydot/files/shared/Construction/2015%20Construction
%20Manual/2015%20Construction%20Manual.pdf
C-160

APPENDIX D: AMG SURVEY OUTCOMES REPORT

CONTENTS
Methodology............................................................................................................................................. 9
Questionnaire Planning and Development ........................................................................................... 9
Selecting the Samples and Distributing the Surveys ............................................................................ 9
Monitoring.......................................................................................................................................... 10
Assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Demographics of Survey Respondents ................................................................................................... 11
Contractors ......................................................................................................................................... 11
Responding Transportation Agencies ................................................................................................ 14
Agency Designers .............................................................................................................................. 15
Agency Planners and Surveyors ......................................................................................................... 16
Agency Procurement and Construction Function .............................................................................. 17
Software and Hardware Vendors ....................................................................................................... 19
Heavy Equipment Vendors ................................................................................................................ 19
Training and Educational Organizations ............................................................................................ 20
Barriers to Entry ..................................................................................................................................... 21
Contractor’s Perspective .................................................................................................................... 21
Agency Designer’s Perspective .......................................................................................................... 26
DTM Creation, Use, and Sharing ........................................................................................................... 29
Answer ............................................................................................................................................... 32
Count .................................................................................................................................................. 32
Percentage .......................................................................................................................................... 32
Agency Planner’s and Surveyor’s Perspective ................................................................................... 35
Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective ........................................................... 35
Survey Questions targeted at Agencies Not Sharing EED: ................................................................ 38
Quality Control and Accuracy ................................................................................................................ 40
Agency Planner’s and Surveyor’s Perspective ................................................................................... 70
Software and Hardware Vendor’s Perspective ................................................................................... 74
Heavy Equipment Vendor Perspective............................................................................................... 84
Data Format ............................................................................................................................................ 92
Contractors Perspective ...................................................................................................................... 93
Software and Hardware Vendor’s Perspective ................................................................................... 96
Legal ....................................................................................................................................................... 99
Contractor’s Perspective .................................................................................................................. 101
Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective ......................................................... 101
Agency Designer’s Perspective ........................................................................................................ 102
Training ................................................................................................................................................ 102
Agency Designer’s Perspective ........................................................................................................ 104
Agency Planner’s and Surveyor’s Perspective ................................................................................. 104
D-1

Software and Hardware Vendor’s Perspective ................................................................................. 104

Heavy Equipment Vendor Perspective............................................................................................. 104
Training and Educational Organization Perspective ........................................................................ 105
Perceived Risks..................................................................................................................................... 107
Perceived Benefits ................................................................................................................................ 114
D-2

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 EERC Presentation Webpage for the Surveys ................................................................................ 9
Figure 2 Transportation Agency Responses by U.S. State ......................................................................... 15
Figure 3 File Types of EED Exchanged Across AMG Functions .............................................................. 93
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Respondents by Survey .................................................................................................................. 10

Table 2 Contractor Survey Respondents by Industry Segment .................................................................. 11
Table 3 Contractor Survey Respondents by Functional Unit...................................................................... 11
Table 4 Contractor Survey Respondents by Job Tile/Function Role .......................................................... 12
Table 5 Contractor Survey Respondents by Industrial Labor Relations ..................................................... 12
Table 6 Contractor Survey Respondents by Use of AMG .......................................................................... 13
Table 7 Number of Annual Projects Completed by Responding Contractors ........................................... 13
Table 8 AMG Applications of Construction Contractors ........................................................................... 14
Table 9 Transportation Functions of Design Survey Respondents ............................................................. 15
Table 10 Job Titles of Design Survey Respondents .................................................................................. 16
Table 11 Transportation Functions of Design Survey Respondents ........................................................... 16
Table 12 Job Titles of Agency Planning Survey Respondents ................................................................... 17
Table 13 Transportation Functions of Procurement/Construction Survey Respondents ............................ 17
Table 14 Job Titles of Procurement/Construction Survey Respondents ..................................................... 18
Table 15 Software and Hardware Vendor Respondent Organization Types ............................................. 19
Table 16 Training and Education Survey Respondents by Delivery Organization Type ........................... 20
Table 17 Contractor Reasons for Not Utilizing AMG ................................................................................ 22
Table 18 Contractor Use of AMG by Contractor Type and Market Segment ........................................... 22
Table 19 Contractors Not Using AMG: Is Cost of Entry Too High? ......................................................... 23
Table 20 Contractors Not Using AMG: Lack of Vendor Support? ............................................................ 23
Table 21 Contractors Not Using AMG: Do Not Understand AMG Technology?...................................... 24
Table 22 Contractors Not Using AMG: Lack of Employees with Technical Skills? ................................. 24
Table 23 Contractors Not Using AMG: Plan to Learn More about AMG .................................................. 25
Table 24 Contractors Not Using AMG: Plan to Implement in Future ........................................................ 25
Table 25 Contractors Not Using AMG: Lack of Owner Cooperation? ...................................................... 26
Table 26 Design Learning Curve Obstacle ................................................................................................. 26
Table 27 Design Time and Effort Obstacle ................................................................................................ 27
Table 28 Design Mindset Obstacle ............................................................................................................. 27
Table 29 Design Standards Obstacle .......................................................................................................... 28
Table 30 Design Specifications Obstacle.................................................................................................... 28
Table 31 Do Contractors utilize DTMs for Estimating? ............................................................................. 29
Table 32 Do Contractors Utilized DTMs for Collection of Earthwork Quantities. .................................... 29
Table 33 Would Contractors Accept DTM Quantities for Payment? ......................................................... 30
Table 34 Contractor Functional Role Creating DTM ................................................................................. 30
Table 35 Percentage of Contractor DTMs Created from 2D ...................................................................... 30
Table 36 When EED Data Exchange Occurs.............................................................................................. 30
Table 37 EED Datasets Received from Owners ......................................................................................... 31
Table 38 Is EED Data Shared Back to Owners? ......................................................................................... 31
Table 39 Medium Utilized for EED Data Exchanges ................................................................................. 31
Table 40 DTM Development Cost Information .......................................................................................... 31
Table 41 Does Design Function Receive DTM from Survey Function? .................................................... 32
Table 42 Design Function Units Producing DTMs..................................................................................... 32
Table 43 Does Design Unit Share Models with Contractors? .................................................................... 32
Table 44 Is Design Model Manipulated When Shared? ............................................................................. 33
D-3

Table 45 Datasets Exchanged from Agency Design Function to Contractors ............................................ 33

Table 46 File Formats Utilized in Data Exchange with Contractors .......................................................... 34
Table 47 Functional Areas Receiving Datasets from Agency Design ........................................................ 34
Table 48 Medium for Data Exchange between Agency Functional Areas ................................................. 34
Table 49 Design Surfaces Shared by Agency Design Functional Area ...................................................... 34
Table 50 Additional Time Required for DTM Model Creation by Agency Design Functions .................. 35
Table 51 Agency Planning Function Topographic Data Collection Methods ........................................... 35
Table 52 Are DTMs Created by Planning Surveying Units? ..................................................................... 35
Table 53 Does Your Agency Procurement/Construction Units Share EED? ............................................. 36
Table 54 Primary Responsibility for DTM Contract Conformation According to Transportation
Agencies ............................................................................................................................................. 36
Table 55 DTM Creation Responsibility by According to Transportation Agencies................................... 37
Table 56 Should Agencies Share EED with Contractors? ......................................................................... 37
Table 57 Should Contractors Share EED with Transportation Agencies?.................................................. 38
Table 58 At What Contract Stage Should EED be Exchanged? ................................................................. 38
Table 59 Do Contractors Currently Exchange DTMs with Agencies? ....................................................... 38
Table 60 How are Electronic Plans Officially/Professionally Approved? ................................................. 38
Table 61 At What Contract Stage is EED Exchanged? .............................................................................. 39
Table 62 EED Datasets Exchanged by Agencies ........................................................................................ 39
Table 63 How are DTM Revisions Aligned with Original Issued Models? ............................................... 39
Table 64 Agency Inspector Access to DTMs ............................................................................................. 40
Table 65 Surveyor and Planner Rankings of Surveying Technology Accuracies ...................................... 41
Table 66 Important DTM Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Software
Organizations ..................................................................................................................................... 41
Table 67 Factors contributing to EED Accuracy According to Software/Hardware Vendors ................... 41
Table 68 Important AMG Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Software
Organizations ..................................................................................................................................... 41
Table 69 Important Equipment Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment
Organizations ..................................................................................................................................... 42
Table 70 Contractor Reported AMG Specification Types .......................................................................... 43
Table 71 Contractor Reported DTM Responsibility for Contract Compliance .......................................... 43
Table 72 Contractor Reported EED Change Sequence............................................................................... 44
Table 73 Contractor Reported AMG QC Responsibility ............................................................................ 44
Table 74 Contractor Reported AMG QC Performance............................................................................... 44
Table 75 AMG Quality Control Intervals by Contractors .......................................................................... 45
Table 76 AMG Quality Assurance Intervals by Contractors ...................................................................... 45
Table 77 Contractor AMG Opinion on Rework ......................................................................................... 45
Table 78 Contractor AMG Opinion on Accuracy vs Conventional Methods ............................................. 45
Table 79 Contractor AMG Opinion on Data Points in DTM...................................................................... 46
Table 80 Contractor AMG Opinion on DTM File Types ........................................................................... 46
Table 81 Contractor AMG Opinion on DTM Translations ........................................................................ 46
Table 82 Contractor AMG Opinion on DTM Constructability Review ..................................................... 47
Table 83 Contractor Opinion on DTM File Size ........................................................................................ 47
Table 84 Contractor Opinion on DTM Constructability Review................................................................ 47
Table 85 Contractor Opinion on DTM Training of Model Builders .......................................................... 48
Table 86 Contractor Opinion on DTM Training of Field Personnel .......................................................... 48
Table 87 Contractor DTM Opinion on Training Machine Operators ......................................................... 49
Table 88 Contractor Opinion on DTM Training for Owners ...................................................................... 49
Table 89 Contractor Opinion on DTM QA/QC Procedures ....................................................................... 49
Table 90 Contractor Opinion on Owner AMG QA/QC Procedures ........................................................... 50
Table 91 Contractor Opinion on AMG Positioning Methods Accuracy..................................................... 50
D-4

Table 92 Contractor Opinion on AMG Tolerances Specified by Owners .................................................. 50

Table 93 Contractor Opinion on AMG Hydraulic Sensor Selection .......................................................... 51
Table 94 Contractor Opinion on AMG Machine Response Time .............................................................. 51
Table 95 Contractor Opinion on AMG Operator Training ......................................................................... 51
Table 96 Contractor Opinion on AMG End-user Error .............................................................................. 51
Table 97 Contractor Opinion on AMG Customer Technical Ignorance ..................................................... 52
Table 98 Contractor Opinion on AMG Owner Technical Ignorance.......................................................... 52
Table 99 Contractor Opinion of AMG QA/QC Failure .............................................................................. 52
Table 100 Contractor Opinion on AMG Control Network Errors .............................................................. 53
Table 101 Contractor Opinion on DTM Final Surface Inaccuracy ............................................................. 53
Table 102 Contractor Opinion on DTM Original Surface Inaccuracies ..................................................... 53
Table 103 Contractor Opinion on DTM Constructability Review and Heavy Equipment Accuracy ......... 53
Table 104 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Specification Content ................................................. 55
Table 105 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Specification Basis ..................................................... 55
Table 106 Agency Procurement Existing AMG Specification Content ..................................................... 55
Table 107 Agency Procurement Existing AMG Specification Basis ......................................................... 55
Table 108 Agency Procurement DTM Contract Conformance Responsibility .......................................... 56
Table 109 Agency Procurement DTM QA/QC Process ............................................................................. 56
Table 110 Agency Procurement QA/QC Contractor Involvement ............................................................. 56
Table 111 Agency Procurement AMG QA/QC Process When Work Underway...................................... 56
Table 112 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Benefits ...................................................................... 57
Table 113 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Data Points ................................................................. 57
Table 114 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM File Types ................................................................... 57
Table 115 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Data Translations........................................................ 58
Table 116 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Constructability Review ............................................. 58
Table 117 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM File Size ...................................................................... 58
Table 118 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Constructability Review ............................................. 59
Table 119 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Model Builders ................................................ 59
Table 120 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Field Personnel ................................................ 60
Table 121 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Machine Operators........................................... 60
Table 122 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Owners ............................................................. 60
Table 123 Agency Procurement Opinion on QA/QC Procedures .............................................................. 62
Table 124 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Control Network........................................ 62
Table 125 Agency Procurement AMG QA/QC Contribution from Contractors ........................................ 62
Table 126 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Positioning Methods .............. 63
Table 127 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Tolerances ................................................. 63
Table 128 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Hydraulic Sensor Selection ....................... 63
Table 129 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Machine Response Time ........................... 64
Table 130 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Operator Training ...................................... 64
Table 131 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-End-user Error ....................... 64
Table 132 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Technical Ignorance .............. 65
Table 133 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Owner Ignorance ................... 65
Table 134 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-QA/QC Process...................... 66
Table 135 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Control Network Errors ......... 66
Table 136 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-DTM ...................................... 66
Table 137 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Original Survey...................... 67
Table 138 Agency Design CAD Drafting Standard Utilized ...................................................................... 67
Table 139 Agency Design CAD Drafting Standard Implementation ......................................................... 67
Table 140 Agency Design CAD Drafting Standard Adoption.................................................................... 68
Table 141 Agency Design CAD Standard QA/QC Compliance ................................................................ 68
Table 142 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Elevation Points .................................................. 69
D-5

Table 143 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-CAD Standards ................................................... 69

Table 144 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Work Process Sequence ...................................... 69
Table 145 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Software Competencies ...................................... 69
Table 146 Agency Planning RTK GPS Utilization..................................................................................... 70
Table 147 Agency Planning Angular Redundancy ..................................................................................... 70
Table 148 Agency Planning GPS Control Processes .................................................................................. 70
Table 149 Agency Planning RTK GPS Specifications ............................................................................... 70
Table 150 Agency Planning Perception on Total Station Survey Accuracy............................................... 71
Table 151 Agency Planning Perception on Robotic Total Station Surveying ............................................ 72
Table 152 Agency Planning Perception of GPS Surveying ........................................................................ 72
Table 153 Agency Planning Perception of Photogrammetric Surveying ................................................... 72
Table 154 Agency Planning GPS Horizontal Accuracy ............................................................................. 73
Table 155 Agency Planning GPS Vertical Accuracy ................................................................................. 73
Table 156 Agency Planning GPS Survey Procedures................................................................................. 73
Table 157 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Elevation Point Density..................................... 74
Table 158 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-CAD Standards.................................................. 74
Table 159 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Work Process Sequence .................................... 75
Table 160 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Designer Competencies ..................................... 75
Table 161 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-DTM Data Points .............................................. 75
Table 162 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-File Types .......................................................... 76
Table 163 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Data Translations .............................................. 76
Table 164 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-DTM Constructability Review .......................... 76
Table 165 Software Vendor Opinion on DTNM Accuracy-User Training ................................................ 77
Table 166 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Algorithms ....................................................... 77
Table 167 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Interoperability ................................................. 77
Table 168 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Translations ...................................................... 78
Table 169 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-File Size ........................................................... 78
Table 170 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-DTM Constructability Review .......................... 79
Table 171 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Model Builders ................................... 79
Table 172 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Field Personnel ................................... 79
Table 173 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Machine Operators ............................. 80
Table 174 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Owners................................................ 80
Table 175 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-QA/QC Procedures............................................ 80
Table 176 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-User Training ...................................................... 81
Table 177 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Machine Response .............................................. 81
Table 178 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Human Error ....................................................... 82
Table 179 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Control Network ................................................. 82
Table 180 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Surveys ............................................................... 82
Table 181 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-File Size .............................................................. 83
Table 182 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Project Size ......................................................... 83
Table 183 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Project Complexity ............................................. 83
Table 184 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Specifications ..................................................... 84
Table 185 Heavy Equipment Vendor Specification requirement Explanation ........................................... 84
Table 186 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Positioning Methods.......................... 84
Table 187 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Specified Tolerances ......................... 85
Table 188 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Sensor Selection ................................ 85
Table 189 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Machine Response Time ................... 85
Table 190 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Operator Training .............................. 86
Table 191 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Human Error ..................................... 86
Table 192 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Customer Ignorance .......................... 87
Table 193 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Owner Ignorance ............................... 87
D-6

Table 194 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-QA/QC Process ................................. 87
Table 195 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Control Network................................ 88
Table 196 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-DTM .................................................. 88
Table 197 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Original Survey ................................. 88
Table 198 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Sensors .............................................. 89
Table 199 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Sensor Calibration ............................. 89
Table 200 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Problem Identification ....................... 90
Table 201 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Problem Mitigation ........................... 90
Table 202 Heavy Equipment Vendor Sensor Selection .............................................................................. 90
Table 203 Heavy Equipment Vendor Sensor Product Documentation ....................................................... 91
Table 204 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Specifications ..................................................... 92
Table 205 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG QA/QC ............................................................... 92
Table 206 Contractor File Formats for AMG ............................................................................................. 93
Table 207 Contractor EED Needed from Owners ...................................................................................... 94
Table 208 Agency Procurement File Formats for AMG ............................................................................ 94
Table 209 Agency Procurement DTM File Exchange Medium ................................................................. 94
Table 210 Agency Designer File Formats Received for AMG................................................................... 95
Table 211 Agency Designer Application File Formats............................................................................... 95
Table 212 Agency Designer CAD File Formats ......................................................................................... 95
Table 213 Agency Designer Application File Formats Exported ............................................................... 96
Table 214 Software Vendor Application Interoperability Standards .......................................................... 96
Table 215 Software Vendor Application Dataset Import ........................................................................... 96
Table 216 Software Vendor Application File Format Import ..................................................................... 97
Table 217 Software Vendor File Format Export ........................................................................................ 97
Table 218 Software Vendor Opinion on Interoperability-Customer Demand ............................................ 97
Table 219 Software Vendor Opinion on Interoperability-Owner Demand................................................. 98
Table 220 Software Vendor Opinion on Interoperability-Agency Specifications ...................................... 98
Table 221 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Point Density ..................................................... 98
Table 222 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Work Process .................................................... 99
Table 223 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Production Sequence ......................................... 99
Table 224 Respondents Reporting Claims or Arbitration Related to AMG ............................................. 100
Table 225 Contractor and Agency Opinions of Liability Exposure with EED Exchange ........................ 100
Table 226 Contractor and Agency Opinions of Sharing EED and Cooperation ....................................... 100
Table 227 Contractors Opinions Regarding Sharing of EED ................................................................... 101
Table 228 How Agencies Not Sharing EED Should Limit Liability ........................................................ 101
Table 229 How Agencies Currently Sharing EED Limit Liability ........................................................... 102
Table 230 Agency Designers Concern with Liability from Sharing EED ................................................ 102
Table 231 Contractor Field Personnel Software Training ........................................................................ 103
Table 232 Contractor Field Personnel Hardware Training ....................................................................... 103
Table 233 Contractor Machine Operator Training.................................................................................... 103
Table 234 Agency Procurement Field Personnel AMG Training ............................................................. 103
Table 235 Agency Designer 3D Training ................................................................................................. 104
Table 236 Agency Planning Position Method Training ............................................................................ 104
Table 237 Software Vendor Product Training .......................................................................................... 104
Table 238 Heavy Equipment Vendor Training Offerings......................................................................... 105
Table 239 Training/Education AMG Course Offering Count .................................................................. 105
Table 240 Training/Education AMG Course Delivery Method ............................................................... 105
Table 241 Training Education AMG CEU Course Credit ........................................................................ 106
Table 242 Training/Education Course Credit Types ................................................................................ 106
Table 243 AMG Risk Factors rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Vendors ........................ 107
Table 244 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Owner Cooperation ............................................................ 108
D-7

Table 245 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Equipment Investment........................................................ 108

Table 246 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Internal Competent Personnel ............................................ 108
Table 247 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Required Training .............................................................. 109
Table 248 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-DTM Consultants ............................................................... 109
Table 249 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Operator Distraction ........................................................... 109
Table 250 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Owner Cooperation ................................................................. 110
Table 251 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Equipment Investment ............................................................ 110
Table 252 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Competent Personnel .............................................................. 111
Table 253 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Required Training ................................................................... 111
Table 254 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-DTM Consultants .................................................................... 111
Table 255 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Owner Cooperation ............................................... 112
Table 256 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Equipment Investment .......................................... 112
Table 257 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Competent Personnel ............................................ 113
Table 258 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Required Training ................................................. 113
Table 259 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-DTM Consultants.................................................. 113
Table 260 Perceived AMG Benefits Rates by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Vendors ............. 114
Table 261 Comparison of Contractor and Equipment Vendor Productivity Gains with AMG ................ 115
Table 262 Comparison of Contractor and Equipment Vendor Cost Savings with AMG ......................... 115
Table 263 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Labor Savings ................................................................ 116
Table 264 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression ................................................... 116
Table 265 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Re-Work .................................................. 116
Table 266 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-As-Built Documentation ................................................ 117
Table 267 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Constructability Review ................................................ 117
Table 268 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Safety ............................................................................. 117
Table 269 Contractor Productivity Increase with AMG ........................................................................... 118
Table 270 Contractor Cost Savings with AMG ........................................................................................ 118
Table 271 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression ....................................................... 119
Table 272 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Re-Work....................................................... 119
Table 273 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Accuracy ............................................................................. 119
Table 274 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Safety .................................................................................. 119
Table 275 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Field Labor Reduction ........................................................ 120
Table 276 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Contractor Labor Cost Savings .......................................... 120
Table 277 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Fuel Savings ....................................................................... 120
Table 278 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression ....................................................... 121
Table 279 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Contractor Re-Work .................................... 121
Table 280 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-As-Built Documentation ..................................................... 121
Table 281 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Constructability Review ..................................................... 122
Table 282 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Jobsite Safety ...................................................................... 122
Table 283 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Public Safety....................................................................... 123
Table 284 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Labor Savings ................................................... 123
Table 285 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Fuel Savings ..................................................... 123
Table 286 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression ..................................... 124
Table 287 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Re-Work .................................... 124
Table 288 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-As-Built Documentation................................... 124
Table 289 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Constructability Review ................................... 125
Table 290 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Jobsite Safety.................................................... 125
Table 291 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Public Safety..................................................... 126
Table 292 Equipment Vendor Customer Productivity Increase with AMG ............................................. 126
Table 293 Equipment Vendor Customer Cost Savings with AMG .......................................................... 127
D-8

METHODOLOGY
Questionnaire Planning and Development

The project survey was intended to garner information from several groups of AMG stakeholders to
define the current state of the industry. Separate survey questions for the stakeholder groups were
developed by the project team based upon internal collaboration and the literature collected up t that
pointing the research. The survey questions were presented and featured in the AMG Workshop on
October 2, 2009 where the participants evaluated and gave feedback on the draft survey questions. After
the workshop was conducted, the draft survey questions were refined and presented to the project
Oversight Panel. Upon receipt and incorporation of the feedback and suggestions of the Oversight Panel,
the survey questions were finalized and integrated into the on-line survey software application. Each
survey was accessible through its own internet address (URL), all of which were presented on a master
webpage at the Earthworks Engineering Research Center (EERC) hosted by Iowa State University. The
individual survey URL was included in an email to targeted survey respondents. The list of targeted
survey participants was formed through multiple channels including: key contacts within AGC,
participation within TRB, and industry leadership. Eight separate surveys were created and launched:
• Transportation Agencies
1. Agency Surveying Functions
2. Agency Design Functions
3. Agency Construction/Bid/Contract Functions
• Private Industry
4. Construction Contractors
5. Heavy Equipment Suppliers
6. Software/Hardware Vendors
7. Legal Aspects
8. Trainers/Educators
Figure 1 displays a screenshot of the EERC presentation webpage.
Figure 1 EERC Presentation Webpage for the Surveys

Selecting the Samples and Distributing the Surveys
Two master lists were compiled to prepare a pool of respondents for the eight surveys. Master List 1 was
created by gathering contact information from the following target groups:
• previous NCHRP projects,
D-9

• this project's AMG Workshop,

• the Associated General Contractors (AGC) national membership, and
• a Mississippi Department of Transportation AMG project.
Contacts on Master List 1 were expected to complete at least one of the questionnaires.
Master List 2 was created by gathering contact information from leaders of the Professional Engineering
License Board and the Professional Land Surveyor Associations in each of the fifty states. Contacts on
Master List 2 were expected to forward the surveys to members of their organization or committee and
ask them to complete a survey.
A letter that described the project and survey focus was created as a cover letter for the surveys that were
emailed as attachments to potential respondents on the two master lists. A multi-phase email campaign
organized to communicate with these respondents consisted of
• a personalized e-mail that was sent to all of the respondents on Master List 1 and Master List 2
and
• a personalized follow-up e-mail that was sent to every targeted respondent reminding them to
forward the survey to colleagues who had knowledge of AMG and of the February 26, 2010,
closing date for the survey.
Survey respondents were contacted by phone for further information if they indicated interest in further
communication about the survey. More than 5,000 survey recipients were contacted between February 1
and February 26, 2010. , and 504 valid responses were received.
Monitoring
Throughout the deployment and implementation of the surveys, contact with the respondents was an
ongoing process. Several survey recipients requested an alternate way to take the survey (e.g., manually
on printed copies and returned by facsimile or electronic document). Some respondents wanted to be able
to view all of the questions before submitting their surveys. The project team handled each of these
requests individually. Team members manually recorded answers during telephone calls with three survey
respondents and transferred their responses to on-line survey forms. These responses resulted from
unresolved technical issues experienced by three respondents.
Assessment
A total of 504 persons responded in whole or in part to eight targeted surveys. The largest number of
responses were from agency construction/procurement functional areas and construction contractors. The
lowest response rate concerned the legal Aspects survey.
Table 1 Respondents by Survey

Survey Responses
Agency Surveying Functions 76
Agency Design Functions 65
Agency Construction/Bid/Contract Functions 121
Construction Contractors 118
Heavy Equipment Suppliers 30
Software/Hardware Vendors 34
Legal Aspects 12
Trainers/Educators 48
Total Respondents 504
D-10

DEMOGRAPHICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
Contractors
One hundred and eighteen (118) contractors participated in the survey. Of those, only 30 reported
experience with AMG. Those thirty contractors, half of which have five or more years’ experience with
the technology, represent close to 700 projects annually utilizing AMG, mainly for mass and fine grading
earthwork applications. Approximately half of the contractor respondents were middle or executive
managers representing mostly prime contractors in the public works sector of the industry. At least one
respondent reported use of AMG for sub grade trimming equipment and landfill compaction operations.
Of the 118 contractors, 62 participants answered each survey question while 56 answered only a portion
of the questions. Sixty-Four percent (76 total) of the contractor respondents classified themselves as
prime contractors. Approximately half (49%) of all the contractors responding are prime contractors
involved in the public works segment of the industry. Conversely, twenty-one percent (21%) of all the
contractor respondents identified themselves with the private sector of the industry. The survey questions
regarding contractor demographics required the respondents to choose the one best answer for describing
themselves and their organization, with an optional text box for capturing categories not listed in the
specific question. The answers from the 'Other' option are provided at the bottom of the tables of survey
response results. Table 2 displays the result from the Contractor Survey question, ‘Please indicate your
organization's PRIMARY type of business.
Table 2 Contractor Survey Respondents by Industry Segment

Prime Contractor-Private Market (A) 18 15%
Prime Contractor-Public Works Market (B) 58 49%
Subcontractor-Private Market (C) 3 3%
Subcontractor-Public Works Market (D) 10 9%
Consultant-Private Market (E) 4 3%
Consultant-Public Works Market (F) 2 2%
Other 5 4%
No answer 18 15%
Non completed 0 0%
Other: Prime - Private & Public, Oil Refinery, General Contractor, Equipment Dealer, DOT.
Table 3 displays results from the contractor survey question, 'Please indicate the closest function of the
unit in which you work'. Approximately half of the contractor respondents identified themselves as
associated with their organization's executive management functional area. The second and third most
frequent response was Construction with 14 percent and “No Answer” were participants specifically
selected a “No Answer” box. The fourth highest frequency was Project Management, and the fifth highest
was the estimating functional area were 7 percent identified themselves.
Table 3 Contractor Survey Respondents by Functional Unit

Executive Management (A) 53 45%
Estimating (B) 8 7%
Project Management (C) 10 8%
D-11


Accounting (D) 1 1%
Construction (E) 17 14%
Engineering (F) 7 6%
Equipment Management (G) 2 2%
IT (information Technology) Management (H) 1 1%
Other 2 2%
No answer 17 14%
Non completed 0 0%
Other: GPS training and upkeep, Technical Communicator.
The results from querying the contractors 'Please choose respondent's job title/functional role', mirrors
closely the results of the previous question of association with functional area. This question correctly
validated the participant response with the initial selected response. Approximately half of the
respondents were either executive or middle managers in title.
Table 4 Contractor Survey Respondents by Job Tile/Function Role

CEO/CFO/President (A) 38 33%
Regional/General Manager (B) 13 11%
Unit/Department Manager (C) 10 9%
Estimator (D) 5 4%
Project Manager (E) 7 6%
Superintendent (F) 5 4%
Surveyor (G) 3 2%
Equipment Manager (H) 0 0%
IT Manager (I) 0 0%
Other 19 16%
No answer 18 15%
Non completed 0 0%
Other: Chief Engineer, VP, Director of Construction, GPS champion, Controlled Systems Coordinator,
Vice President, Engineering Technician, Vice President, VP, Vice President, GPS champion, OWNER,
Estimating, Machine control and guidance specialist, Vice President, Business Development, Staff
Construction Engineer, ADM ASST, Vice President.
Well over half (56%) of the contractors responding to the survey identified themselves as Open Shop
contractors as shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5 Contractor Survey Respondents by Industrial Labor Relations

Closed Shop (Union Membership Required) (A) 32 27%
Agency Shop (Union Membership Optional but Dues Required) (B) 2 2%
Merit Shop/Open Shop (Union Membership Optional) (C) 66 56%
No answer 18 15%
Non completed 0 0%
Table 6 displays results from the contractor survey question ' Does your company utilize Automated
Machine Guidance (AMG)?'. Sixty-six (66) contractors provided an answer to the AMG utilization
question, thirty-six (36) responded with 'No'. Thirty (30) participants answered “Yes”, with twenty (20)
D-12

indicating utilization both on Public Works and Private Works. A total of 52 out of 118 respondents either
did not select a response to the question as indicated by “Non-Completed” (47) or responded by selecting
“No answer” (5).
Only one option was allowed in response to the AMG Utilization question. To focus the contractors who
have AMG experience, the balances of the AMG-specific survey questions were only accessible to
contractors who indicated that they had experience with AMG or who responded with “No Answer”.
When a respondent answered 'No' to the AMG utilization question, the subsequent questions related to
AMG use were skipped over and the participant was directed to questions regarding why the technology
and process is not currently used in their organization, then to a 'Submit Survey' option, and finally the
opportunity to provide contact information. The following table displays the breakdown regarding
contractor use of AMG.
Table 6 Contractor Survey Respondents by Use of AMG

No. (A) 36 3%
Yes-Mainly On Public Works Projects. (B) 6 5%
Yes-Mainly On Private Market Projects. (C) 4 3%
Yes-On Both Public Works and Private Market Projects Equally. (D) 20 17%
No answer 5 4%
Non completed 47 40%
Table 7 displays the results from the contractor survey question ' Approximately how many projects does
your organization complete in a year utilizing AMG?'. Although the number of contractors with AMG
experience who completed the survey was disappointingly low, the twenty-eight (28) who answered this
question represent approximately 681 projects performed annually, with the highest annual number of
AMG projects reported at 200 per year. Twenty-two of the contractors reported AMG experience of five
years or more, which leads us to believe that the survey data reported has significance.
Table 7 Number of Annual Projects Completed by Responding Contractors

Calculation Result
Count 28
Sum 681
Standard deviation 43.14
Average 24.32
Minimum 2
1st quartile (Q1) 7
2nd quartile (Median) 6
3rd quartile (Q3) 18.75
Maximum 200
Null values are ignored in calculations
Q1 and Q3 calculated using minitab method
Table 8 displays responses to the question ' Which applications do you currently use AMG for?'. This
question allowed multiple answers to be chosen.
D-13

Table 8 AMG Applications of Construction Contractors

Earthwork. (A) 25 36%
Fine grading. (B) 26 38%
Utilities. (C) 9 13%
Paving. (D) 7 10%
Other 2 3%
Other: trimming of subgrade, compaction at landfills.
Responding Transportation Agencies

Three of the project's questionnaires were targeted at specific transportation agency functional areas
defined by NCHRP Synthesis 385, Information Technology for Efficient Project Delivery:
Design Function: The selection and detailed refinement of project alternatives regarding scope and
design.
Planning and Surveying Functions: The development of project design alternatives (feasibility) once a
need has been identified. Also responsible for initial location and positioning data (location surveys).
Procurement and Construction Functions: Development and delivery of contract documents; selection of
the prime contractor to build the project; and administration of construction, maintenance, and operations
contracts and project management of the transportation projects. Inspection of project materials and
methods for compliance with minimum project quality specifications, and jobsite and administrative
contract administration.
The three targeted transportation agency surveys represent responses from 49 U.S States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Ontario, Canada. Most of the transportation agency responses were from
individual state agencies, however there were also responses from city, county, and consulting
transportation agencies and organizations. Figure 2 represents transportation agency responses from the
United States by type of survey completed:
D=Design Transportation Agency Survey Questionnaire

PS-Planning and Surveying Transportation Agency Survey Questionnaire
PC=Procurement and Construction Transportation Agency Survey Questionnaire
D-14

Figure 2 Transportation Agency Responses by U.S. State
While it is convenient to organize transportation agency functional areas mentally as closely aligned and
titled with names which mirror project lifecycles, the reality is that the agencies' functional
areas/departments are organized and titled uniquely. Therefore, it may be that a transportation survey
respondent from a department of functional area other than 'design' is best qualified to answer the survey
questions. Additionally, the survey instructions encouraged the respondents to direct the survey to the
most knowledgeable person available, which may have been in a functional role other than design (or
another functional area). The survey tool possessed 'persistence' features, which allowed a survey to be
saved, emailed to another person, and then completed. Some of the surveys were completed by multiple
persons from the same agency.
Agency Designers
Sixty-Five (65) persons associated with transportation agency design functions participated in the
Designer’s Survey. Of this total, 32 respondents identified themselves as associated with a design
functional area, while 17 did not respond to the question. Nine respondents identified their related
functional areas as 'other', displayed in Table 9 below.
Table 9 Transportation Functions of Design Survey Respondents

Functional Area Count Percentage
Planning (A) 2 3%
Design (B) 32 49%
Procurement (C) 0 0%
Construction (D) 4 6%
O&M (E) 1 2%
Other 9 14%
No answer 17 26%
D-15


Non completed 0 0%
Other: CADD Support, Support of Planning, Design, and Construction, Research, GIS, Engineering
Services Division
Agency Design Survey respondents identified their functional roles/job titles displayed in Table 10
below:
Table 10 Job Titles of Design Survey Respondents
Job Title/Functional Roles
Senior Technician/ Survey Supervisor Senior Engineering Technician
CADD Engineer - Roadway Design Assistant Design Engineer
CADD Support Engineer Safety/Geometric Design Engineer
Engineering Software Support Senior Manager/Construction Services
CADD Support Coordinator Engineering Manager, State Road
Office, Roadway Design
Engineering Support Senior Project Engineer
Assistant Chief Engineer - Operations Chief Engineer
Director Engineering Solutions Delivery and Support Services GIS Coordinator
Assistant City Engineer Design Engineering Manager
Engineer Design & Construction Manager
Geotechnical Research Manager Staff Construction Engineer
C & M eng Assistant Director of Transportation
Information Division
Assistant State Roadway Design Engineer Performance Analysis Engineer
Supervising Surveyor Senior Transportation Engineer, Chief
CADD Support Branch
State Design Engineer Transportation Engineering Program
Supervisor
Director Office of Design & Deputy Chief Engineer Engineer III, GIS Manager, Surveyor
CADD Support Branch Chief Performance Analysis
Design Resource Engineer Asst Chief Road Design Engineer
CAD Manager
Agency Planners and Surveyors
Seventy-Seven (77) persons associated with transportation agency planning/surveying functions
participated in the survey. Of this total, 11 respondents identified themselves as associated with a
planning and/or surveying functional area, while 22 did not respond to the question. Six respondents
identified their related functional areas as 'other', displayed in Table 11 below (six of which are surveying
related plus Geographical Information Systems).
Table 11 Transportation Functions of Design Survey Respondents

Planning (A) 5 6%
Design (B) 18 24%
O&M (E) 0 0%
Other 19 25%
D-16


No answer 21 28%
Non completed 1 1%
Other: Survey, Research, Location Surveys / Mapping, Right of Way and Land Surveys, Contract
Administration, Road & Bridge Constr & maintenance, Land Surveying, GIS, Surveying and Mapping,
Location, Land Surveys, Engineering Services Division.
Agency Planning/Surveying Questionnaire respondents identified their functional roles/job titles

displayed in Table 12:
Table 12 Job Titles of Agency Planning Survey Respondents

Senior Technician/ Survey Supervisor Senior Manager
State Surveyor Planner
Research Program Manager Contract Administration Engineer
Senior Manager/Construction
Region Engineer
Services
State Photogrammetry & Surveys Engineer/mapping and
Surveyor
surveying
CADD Services Engineer Senior Land Surveyor
State Location & Surveys Engineer Survey Manager
Engineering Support GPS Coordinator
District Surveyor SR. Civil Engineering Manager 1
Director Engineering Solutions Delivery and Support Services Right of Way Manager
Construction Staff Engineer Construction Specialist
Senior Transportation Surveyor Staff Construction Engineer
State Highway Development Engineer Senior Transportation engineer
C & M Liaison Engineer Vertical Territory Manager-Civil
Assistant Design Engineer CADD Support
District Construction Project Engineer Chief of Surveys
Supervising Surveyor Performance Analysis Engineer
Assistant State planning engineer Chief Geodesist
Administrator,
Engineer III - GIS manager, Surveyor
bureau of planning and community assistance
Chief, Office of Land Surveys Regional Director of Transportation
State Survey Engineer Survey crew party chief
CAD Manager Asst. Division Head - Surveys
Agency Procurement and Construction Function
One hundred and twenty-one (121) persons associated with transportation agency
procurement/construction functions participated in the survey. Of this total, 61 respondents identified
themselves as associated with a procurement and/or construction functional area, while 36 did not
respond to the question. Fifteen respondents identified their related functional areas as 'other', displayed in
Table 13:
Table 13 Transportation Functions of Procurement/Construction Survey Respondents

Planning (A) 4 3%
D-17


Design (B) 4 3%
O&M (E) 1 1%
Other 15 12%
No answer 33 27%
Non completed 3 3%
Other: Policy, District Executive, Office of Quality Assurance Construction Applications, Research,
Office of Quality Assurance (Construction Applications), Systems Engineering, Contract Administration,
Maintenance, Design & Construction, Construction Program Management for the FHWA, Office
Engineer, Design and Construction, Engineering Services Division.
Agency Procurement/Construction Survey respondents identified their functional roles/job titles displayed
in the Table 14:
Table 14 Job Titles of Procurement/Construction Survey Respondents

Highway Engineer supervisor
Director of Construction Construction Engineer
Deputy Chief Engineer -Construction Chief of Engineering Audit
Assist Bureau Chief Const & Maint President
DOT-Manager District 1 Construction Engineer
Supervising Engineer, Construction Construction Liaison Engineer
District Construction Engineer Construction Quality Assurance Specialist
Director of Construction/Materials Regional Engineer
State Construction and Materials
Senior Manager/Construction Services
Engineer
Engineering Support Head, Construction Contracts
District Executive Contract Administration Engineer
Construction Management Construction Associate
Division of Maintenance, Office Chief Safety, Equipment and
Transportation Engineer
Training
Project Review Engineer Assistant District Construction Engineer
Geotechnical Research Manager Construction Engineering Manager
Transporation Engineer Director
Systems Engineer Construction Surveyor Coordinator
State Construction Engineer Area Roadway Engineer
Regional Construction Engineer Director, Office of Construction
Programs Manager/Surveys and
Supervising Engineer, Construction
Photogammetry
Construction & Materials Engineer Chief Roadway Standards Engineer
Programs Manager/ Surveys and
Transportation Speciaist
Photogammetry
Construction Operations Engineer (COE) - Supervisory Civil
HQ Area Engineer
Engineering position
Buyer Specialist State construction Engineer
District Six Construction Engineer Project Development
Deputy Cheif Engineer Former State Highway Administrator (Retired)
performance Analysis Construction & System Preservation Engineer
D-18


Project Engineer, Construction Staff Construction Engineer
Civil Engineer I, Engineer in Charge Construction Quality Management Engineer
Acting Chief Project Control Office Innovative Construction Contract Procedures Specialist
chief roadway std Performance Analysis Engineer
Transportation Engineer II / Construction Field Liaison in
Senior Transportation Engineer
Central Office
CAD Manager
Software and Hardware Vendors

Thirty-six (34) persons associated with AMG software and/or hardware functions participated in this
survey. The survey results consist of 19 surveys in which all the questions were answered in total.
Respondents to this survey reported their business type as follows in the text and Table 15:
Software Provider, Engineering Software Development, supplier, GPS Vendor, Technology provider,
Technology Consultant, Software, GPS machine control supplier, Machine Controls manufacturer, All,
AMG Systems Manufacturer, construction positioning dealer, sales, Supplier of Machine control
technology, Manufacturer of Machine Control System for Cat and Trimble, AMG Manufacturer,
Manufacturer of Machine Control and Survey Positioning Products for the Construction and Survey
Markets, Design SW Manufacturer, Software Solutions Provider, Manufacturing and sale of Precise
positioning equipment, Software, Software Vendor.
Table 15 Software and Hardware Vendor Respondent Organization Types

Design software developer and down channel sales and training partner (B) 11 32%
Other 5 15%
No answer 5 15%
Non completed 0 0%
Other: Construction Company, 3D Data Prep Modeling, construction positioning dealer, State DOT
Heavy Equipment Vendors

Thirty-six (30) persons associated with AMG heavy construction equipment functions participated in this
survey. The survey consisted of 61 questions and half were answered in total. Respondents to this survey
reported their functional unit/department/division as follows:
• Engineering / Research • Machine Sales Department/Specialty

• Connect Worksite Products Group/Machine Control &
• Heavy Equipment Sales Guidance, Paving Products
• SITECH of Indiana LLC • Machine Sales/Marketing/training
• General Contractor • Technology Products - providing sales,
• Engineering / Research & Development support and training of AMG
• Research & Development • Technical Communicator/Heavy
• Connected Worksite, Tool Automation Equipment Division Sales and Service
development group Support for AccuGrade
• owner • Large Asphalt Paver Design
• Connected Worksite, Tool Automation • Connected Worksite
Development Group • Technology Division
D-19

• Technical Products / Accugrade • Engineering Department

• Construction Machinery Division • AEC Sales
• Construction Division • Construction Sales Division
• Heavy equipment sales
Respondents to this survey reported their job title/functional role as follows:
• Engineer • Product Support Manager - manage

• Application Engineering inventory, provide training, installation
• Technology Specialist/Territory and technical assistance to end users
Manager • Sales and Service Support
• Construction Technology Specialist • Mechanical Engineer
• Superintendent • AccuGrade Manager
• V.P. Engineering / R&D • Technology Specialist
• Controls Engineering Manager • Technical Product Specialist
• Technical Development Lead Engineer • Manger, Paving Products Machine
• President Control & Guidance Systems
• Connected worksite application • Staff Construction Engineer
specialist • Equipment Specialist - Demonstrator
• Technical Team Lead Engineer Operator
• Manager - Specialty Products Group • Vice President, Engineering
• Machine Sales Training mgr. • Territory Manager
• Sales Operations Manager
Training and Educational Organizations

The survey questionnaire for training and educational organizations was intended for discovery of AMG
training opportunities related to the process in general, specific hardware or software utilization, or for
operators on heavy equipment. This specific survey was populated by forty-eight (48) responses with 42
full responses and 6 responses not completely filled out. As the close deadline of the online surveys
approached and responses to this survey were low, the survey URL was solicited on the Associated
Schools of Construction (ASC) email list server, therefore approximately half of the respondents were
from universities of colleges as displayed in Table 16:
Table 16 Training and Education Survey Respondents by Delivery Organization Type

Design software developer and down channel sales and training partner (B) 0 0%
Independent professional trainer (D) 1 2%
University or college (E) 26 54%
Other 8 17%
No answer 8 17%
Non completed 0 0%
Other: DOT, Construction Company, Construction Company, General Contractor, Construction
positioning equipment dealer, FHWA, Engineering Company, 3D MC software & Design.
Respondents to the AMG training survey were offered the option to identify their organizational name.
The following list represents respondents which chose to do so:
D-20

• Leica Geosystems • Associated Professionals Inc. (API)

• Construction and Materials Support • University of Nebraska
Center University of Wisconsin - • FHWA
Madison • University of New Mexico
• AMW Group, inc. • Milton Cat
• Kiewit,Stacy and Witbeck,Reyes, • SITECH of Indiana, LLC
Parsons, a joint Venture • Duplantis Design Group
• 3D Surface Solutions, LLC • OU
• Kiewit • Georgia Southern University
• Western Carolina University • Department of Technology and
• Western Carolina University Construction Management Missouri
• Purdue University State University
• Pittsburg State University • Colorado State University Department
• Wentworth Institute of Technology of Construciton Management Dept 1584
• Michigan Sate University, School of • Oregon State University School of Civil
Planning Design and Construction and Construction Engineering
• Clemson University Construction • Georgia Southern University
Science & Mgt • University of Arkansas Little Rock
• Southern Illinois University • California State University - Fresno
Edwardsville Lyle's College of Engineering
• Western Illinois University Construction Management Program
• Purdue University • CSU, Chico Construction Management
• API - Associated Professionals Inc Department
• CSU • Mississippi State University
• Mesa State College Construction • Carlson Software, Inc.
Management Program
BARRIERS TO ENTRY
Contractor’s Perspective
The contractor’s survey contained a series of questions regarding the reasons why their organization was
not utilizing AMG. The answers given to these questions are summarized as follows and displayed in the
tables below:
The largest barrier of entrance to AMG as ranked by the respondents (by 2 to 1) was a perception of an
investment which is too costly. The majority of the contractors responding to the survey classify
themselves as primarily general contractors in the public works segment who also perform construction in
the private market.
Reasons given for not utilizing AMG in order of descending response rate:
1. Perceived cost of entry being too high.
2. Perceived lack of vendor support.
3. Tie: Not understanding the technology and the lack of qualified technical personnel.
An equal number of votes were received from contractors who stated they did not understand the AMG
technology (and therefore were not using it) and those who planned to implement AMG in the future.
Only two of the respondents stated that lack of cooperation by project owners was a reason for not
utilizing AMG.
D-21

Respondents answered according to Table 17 when asked ‘If your company does not utilize Automated
Machine Guidance (AMG) please tell us the reason(s):’
Table 17 Contractor Reasons for Not Utilizing AMG

Reasons Chosen Count Percentage
Cost of entry is too high. (A) 14 22%
Lack of vendor/technical support in this geographic area. (B) 6 10%
Do not understand the technology. (C) 7 11%
Lack of employees with appropriate technical skills. (D) 6 10%
We plan to learn more about AMG. (E) 6 10%
We plan to implement AMG in the future. (F) 7 11%
The owners we work for will not cooperate. (G) 2 3%
Other 15 24%
Other: nothing for our work has been developed, Not our market, No applications in building
construction, We build buildings not roads, Subcontract most grading work, Our Subcontractors utilize
this technology. We do not directly use it, does not apply to our trades, We use very little machinery- five
skid-steers, two telescopic lifts, one small excavator, this work is subcontracted out, We do not self
perform site work, We are an engineering firm, We do not perform site/grading work, Existing sub
surface conditions may not be safe/allow, We use 3-D technology, but grade with layout because of
entrance fees.
Table 18 displays a cross tabulation of two questions in the Contractor Survey:

• Please indicate your organization\'s PRIMARY type of business.
• Does your company utilize Automated Machine Guidance (AMG)?
The results may indicate a trend in that prime contractors engaged in the public works sector of the
construction market are the early adopters of AMG technology. It would appear that prime contractors are
the early adopters on both the public and private construction market segments vs. subcontractor
organizations.
Table 18 Contractor Use of AMG by Contractor Type and Market Segment

Yes-On Both Public
Contractor Type and Yes-Mainly On Yes-Mainly On
Works and Private
Primary Market No. Public Works Private Market Total
Market Projects
Segment Projects. Projects.
Equally.
Prime Contractor-
9 0 2 0 11
Private Market
Prime Contractor-
18 5 2 13 38
Public Works Market
Subcontractor-Private
2 0 0 0 2
Market
Subcontractor-Public
4 1 0 3 8
Works Market
Consultant-Private
2 0 0 1 3
Market
Consultant-Public
0 0 0 0 0
Works Market
Total 35 6 4 17 62
‘No answer’ and ‘Other’ parsed during cross tabulation.
D-22

Table 19 represents cross tabulated responses from two questions in the Contractor Survey:
• If your company does not utilize Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) please tell us the
reason(s): [Cost of entry is too high.]
The combined responses displayed in this table may reveal a trend in perception: that the prime
contractors engaged in the public market perceive the cost of entry into AMG as too high (16%) while
those in the private segment do not (6%).
Table 19 Contractors Not Using AMG: Is Cost of Entry Too High?

Contractor Type and
Primary Market Not selected Yes Total
Segment
No Answer 23 0 23
Prime Contractor-Private
17 1 18
Market
Prime Contractor-Public
49 9 58
Works Market
1 2 3
Market
8 2 10
Works Market
Consultant-Private Market 4 0 4
Consultant-Public Works
2 0 2
Market
Total 104 14 118
reason(s): [Lack of vendor/technical support in this geographic area.]
The table of responses to these questions appears to indicate that vendor support is not a significant
barrier to AMG for contractors.
Table 20 Contractors Not Using AMG: Lack of Vendor Support?

Contractor Type and
Segment
No Answer 23 0 23
18 0 18
Market
53 5 58
Works Market
3 0 3
Market
9 1 10
Works Market
D-23

Contractor Type and

Segment
2 0 2
Market
Total 112 6 118
reason(s): [Do not understand the technology.]
Only seven respondents indicated that a lack of understanding the AMG technology was a barrier to
entry, roughly an equal number of prime and subcontractors in both public and private market segments.
Table 21 Contractors Not Using AMG: Do Not Understand AMG Technology?

Contractor Type and
Segment
No Answer 23 0 23
16 2 18
Market
55 3 58
Works Market
2 1 3
Market
9 1 10
Works Market
2 0 2
Market
Total 111 7 118
reason(s): [Lack of employees with appropriate technical skills.]
Because of the low response rate it is difficult to discern meaningful trends from the cross tabulation.
Table 22 Contractors Not Using AMG: Lack of Employees with Technical Skills?
Contractor Type and
Segment
No Answer 23 0 23
18 0 18
Market
55 3 58
Works Market
Subcontractor-Private 2 1 3
D-24

Contractor Type and

Segment
Market
8 2 10
Works Market
2 0 2
Market
Total 112 6 118
reason(s): [We plan to learn more about AMG.]
Table 23 Contractors Not Using AMG: Plan to Learn More about AMG
Contractor Type and
Primary Market
Segment Not selected Yes Total
No Answer 22 1 23
Prime Contractor-Private 18 0 18
Market
Prime Contractor-Public 54 4 58
Works Market
Subcontractor-Private 3 0 3
Market
Subcontractor-Public 9 1 10
Works Market
Consultant-Public Works 2 0 2
Market
Total 112 6 118
reason(s): [We plan to implement AMG in the future.]
Table 24 Contractors Not Using AMG: Plan to Implement in Future

Contractor Type and Primary Market Segment Not selected Yes Total
No Answer 23 0 23
Prime Contractor-Private Market 18 0 18
Prime Contractor-Public Works Market 54 4 58
Subcontractor-Private Market 2 1 3
D-25

Subcontractor-Public Works Market 9 1 10
Consultant-Public Works Market 2 0 2
Total 111 7 118
reason(s): [The owners we work for will not cooperate.]
Table 25 Contractors Not Using AMG: Lack of Owner Cooperation?

No Answer 23 0 23
Prime Contractor-Private Market 18 0 18
Prime Contractor-Public Works Market 57 1 58
Subcontractor-Private Market 3 0 3
Subcontractor-Public Works Market 9 1 10
Consultant-Public Works Market 2 0 2
Total 116 2 118
Agency Designer’s Perspective

In consideration that three-dimensional (3D) design of construction plan drawings, if created by the
designer and shared with the contractor, would aid in the creation of required digital terrain models
(DTM), a series of question in the Agency Design Survey revealed the following information:
Obstacles to 3D design at transportation agencies were reported as follows:

• A perceived steep/deep learning curve for transitioning from 2D to 3D design. This challenge had
the most individual votes and the lowest standard deviation.
• The perception of overcoming existing transportation agency ‘mindsets’ of design procedures.
• The perceived additional time and effort required to develop accurate 3D models compared to
conventional 2D design.
• A perceived lack of agency design specifications for 3D models.
Additional comments which reinforced 3D design as an obstacle for AMG included inadequate hardware,
software, and training.
Survey responses are displayed below in the following tables.
Survey Question: Please rank your opinion of obstacles which challenge or prevent the development of
3D design in your agency/organization. (1=Highest Level Obstacles, 5=Lowest Level Obstacles)
[Training/Steep learning curve.]
Table 26 Design Learning Curve Obstacle
D-26

1 (1) 3 14%
2 (2) 10 45%
3 (3) 5 23%
4 (4) 4 18%
5 (5) 0 0%
Sum (Answers) 22 100%
Number of cases 29 100%
No answer 7 11%
Arithmetic mean 2.45
[Additional time and effort required to develop accurate 3D models.]
Table 27 Design Time and Effort Obstacle
1 (1) 5 23%
2 (2) 6 27%
3 (3) 5 23%
4 (4) 5 23%
5 (5) 1 5%
No answer 7 11%
[Overcoming existing agency mindset of design procedure.]
Table 28 Design Mindset Obstacle

1 (1) 7 32%
2 (2) 4 18%
3 (3) 7 32%
4 (4) 3 14%
5 (5) 1 5%
No answer 7 11%
D-27

[Lack of applied agency design standards.]
Table 29 Design Standards Obstacle
1 (1) 3 14%
2 (2) 6 27%
3 (3) 4 18%
4 (4) 6 27%
5 (5) 3 14%
No answer 7 11%
Arithmetic mean 3
[Lack of design/construction specifications for 3D models.]
Table 30 Design Specifications Obstacle
1 (1) 4 18%
2 (2) 6 27%
3 (3) 6 27%
4 (4) 3 14%
5 (5) 3 14%
No answer 7 11%
Additional comments received from the survey in response to the question, ‘Are there any other obstacles
which challenge or prevent the development of 3D design in your agency/organization?’ are as follows:
• Complete new design process for production of 3d model. Lack of 3d design tools for accurate
models in intersection areas. Hard to create automated templates for all cases.
• Current road design software in use does not create 3D models using an acceptable method.
• Electronic seals and signatures.
• Construction industry acceptance.
• Computers with low processing speeds.
• Software, training and time.
• Meeting timelines.
• Adequate software to complete quality 3D models in a timely manner.
D-28

DTM CREATION, USE, AND SHARING
Because Digital Terrain Models (DTM) are an essential element in the AMG process, the targeted project
surveys attempted to discover current trends regarding their creation, use, and sharing.
Responses to the Contractor Survey revealed the following:
• Within construction contracting organizations, the creation of the models are tasked equally
between (1) estimator functional roles, (2) specialists whose functional role is dedicated to
modeling, and (3) outsourced consultants.
• The DTMs contractors use for AMG are just as likely to be created from ‘scratch’ (completely
built from 2D plans) as shared at 100% design maturity from the owner’s engineers.
• When an owner shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with the contractor (for DTM
purposes), the exchange process is not standardized in the industry. It is just as likely to occur at
pre-bid, post-bid, or post-contract stages.
• More than half of the EED is shared via computer networks and CD/DVD media.
• More than half of the responding contractors share EED back to the owner (as-built conditions).
• A heavy majority of the responding contractors utilize DTMs for estimating quantities and the
means and methods of earthwork construction tasks.
• A heavy majority of the contractors utilize DTMs for quantity work progress and payment.
• Contractors report a wide range costs for DTM development ($150-$2500 per lane mile,
$750/Acre).
The following tables represent the Contractor’s Survey responses regarding DTM creation, use, and
sharing:
Survey Question: Does your organization utilize Digital Terrain Models (DTM) for estimating purposes?
Table 31 Do Contractors utilize DTMs for Estimating?
N/A (A) 0 0%
No-not to date. (B) 5 12%
Yes-for calculating estimate quantities. (C) 19 44%
Yes-for estimating means and methods. (D) 12 28%
Yes-for constructability only. (E) 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Other: Estimating and construction, Start to finish, we convert the data to be used for AMG system we
sell.
Survey Question: Have you as a contractor used AMG data to collect earthwork quantity volumes?
Table 32 Do Contractors Utilized DTMs for Collection of Earthwork Quantities.
Yes (A) 26 22%
No (B) 2 2%
Other 0 0%
No answer 43 36%
D-29

Survey Question: Would you as a contractor accept AMG data as a basis of payment for work performed?
Table 33 Would Contractors Accept DTM Quantities for Payment?
Yes (A) 22 19%
No (B) 3 2%
Other 2 2%
No answer 44 37%
Other: if it is proven accurate, probably.
Survey Question: WHO creates Digital Terrain Models (DTM) to enable Automated Machine Grading for
your organization?
Table 34 Contractor Functional Role Creating DTM
Estimator(s) (A) 12 30%
An internal person dedicated to DTM modeling. (B) 11 28%
We outsource this to a consultant. (C) 12 30%
The owners provide the DTM. (D) 5 13%
Other 0 0%
Survey Question: What percentage of the DTMs created for your company is completely reverse
engineered from paper plans and drawings?
Table 35 Percentage of Contractor DTMs Created from 2D
100% (A) 6 5%
50-75% (B) 4 4%
25-50% (C) 5 4%
0-25% (D) 6 5%
0 (E) 1 1%
No answer 48 41%
If your owner-agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, such as DTMs, WHEN
does the exchange occur?
Table 36 When EED Data Exchange Occurs
With the bidding documents. (A) 11 31%
With the contract documents (after bidding). (B) 13 36%
After the contract is executed and a pre-construction meeting has occurred. (C) 10 28%
Other 2 6%
Other: with BIM during precon, none
D-30

Survey Question: If Electronic Engineered Data (EED) is received from the owner, which of the
following datasets are typically shared?
Table 37 EED Datasets Received from Owners
None. (A) 1 1%
Slope stake notes. (B) 3 3%
Mass points and/or break lines. (C) 15 17%
Alignment. (D) 16 18%
Partial 3D design model (e.g. without intersection detail) (E) 8 10%
Full 3D design model. (F) 10 11%
3D Surfaces. (G) 15 17%
Graphics. (H) 6 7%
Storm and Sanitary. (I) 12 13%
Other 3 3%
Other: All if the Agency request, not consistent, we usually get the designs, line work and config files for
use in AMG.
Survey Question: When an agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with your company for
AMG, do you share EED back to the agency (i.e. as-built)?
Table 38 Is EED Data Shared Back to Owners?
Usually (A) 10 8%
Rarely (B) 8 7%
Never (C) 5 4%
Other 2 2%
No answer 46 39%
Other: always, We would share EED if asked.
Survey Question: When an agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with your organization,
what MEDIUM is used for the exchange?
Table 39 Medium Utilized for EED Data Exchanges
N/A (A) 0 0%
The files are shared via a secure network. (B) 12 24%
The files are shared via a non-secured network. (C) 8 16%
The files are shared via CD/DVD. (D) 18 35%
The files are shared via flash storage media (flash drives). (E) 9 18%
Other 4 8%
Other: Mostly e-mailed, email, e-mail, none
Survey Question: Can you share any approximate cost ratios for development of DTMs, i.e. cost per lane
mile, or cost per acre?
Table 40 DTM Development Cost Information

D-31

Yes 8 7%
No Answer 110 93%
Non completed 0 0%
Other: $2500/Lane Mile, +/- $150 per lane mile, Roughly $800-1000 per mile based on $80/hour bill rate,
+/- $150 per lane mile, Cost per lane-mile ± $750 Cost per Acre ± $50, Typically 10 hrs to set up a 10
acre site, too early for our company to know costs, We work primarily on runway or short road projects.
Cost per runway (1.5 miles of project) varies from $10,000 - $25,000 depending on complexity.

Transportation design agencies reported the following from their targeted survey:
• Most of the design agencies receive DTMs from their agency’s planning/survey function.
• A roughly equal number of design units produce DTMs as do not.
• A roughly equal number of respondents share DTMs with contractors as those who do not.
• When DTMs are shared with contractors by agencies, a clear majority share them ‘as-is’ with no
manipulation for AMG.
• The most common EED shared is (1) horizontal and vertical alignment, (2) conventional design
files, and (3) TIN triangles.
• The most common file formats shared are (1) .dtm, (2) .tin, and (3) .ttm in that order descending.
• A clear majority of the designers report that 3D models expose design errors and that 3D design
review requires additional time vs. the 2D process.
The following tables represent the Agency Designer responses regarding DTM creation, use, and sharing:
Survey Question: Does your design unit receive original ground Digital Terrain Models (DTMs) from the
survey/planning function?
Table 41 Does Design Function Receive DTM from Survey Function?
Yes (Y) 18 27%
No (N) 3 5%
No answer 7 11%
Survey Question: Does your design unit produce Digital Terrain Models (DTMs)?
Table 42 Design Function Units Producing DTMs
Yes (A) 9 14%
No (B) 7 11%
Don't Know (C) 0 0%
No answer 12 18%
Survey Question: Does your agency share design models with contractors for purposes of Automated
Machine Grading (AMG)?
Table 43 Does Design Unit Share Models with Contractors?
D-32

No (A) 8 12%
Yes-as a matter of process/procedure. (B) 1 2%
Yes-always when requested. (C) 1 2%
Yes-when requested and a model exists. (D) 6 8%
Other 1 2%
No answer 11 17%
Other: Have piloted.
Survey Question: What is done to the model when shared?

Table 44 Is Design Model Manipulated When Shared?
The design models must be enhanced by manipulation of the data points. (A) 1 11%
The design models are shared "as-is" (B) 7 78%
Other 1 11%
Other: Nothing
Survey Question: What datasets are exchanged?

Table 45 Datasets Exchanged from Agency Design Function to Contractors
Slope stake notes. (A) 2 5%
Mass points and/or break lines derived from 2D plans. (B) 2 5%
Horizontal and Vertical Alignments. (C) 8 22%
Partial 3D design model (e.g., without intersection detail) (D) 4 11%
Full 3D design model (E) 3 8%
TIN triangles (F) 4 11%
Design Files (G) 6 16%
Storm and Sanitary (H) 2 5%
Electronic contract documents (I) 1 3%
Finish Grade (J) 3 9%
Other 2 5%
Other: DTM, any electronic data the DOT has (in its native format)-as requested by contractor.
D-33

Survey Question: What file formats are exchanged?

Table 46 File Formats Utilized in Data Exchange with Contractors
.tin (A) 4 31%
.dtm (B) 5 38%
.ttm (C) 2 15%
.LandXML (D) 1 8%
TransXML (E) 0 0%
Drawing file with triangle values displayed (F) 0 0%
Other 1 8%
Other: dwg, dgn, ASCII.
Survey Question: With whom does your agency share the information?
Table 47 Functional Areas Receiving Datasets from Agency Design
Agency Surveying (A) 5 22%
Design (B) 6 26%
Bidding/Procurement (C) 4 17%
Operations/Maintenance (E) 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Other: Contractors when requested.
Survey Question: What medium is used for the file exchange?

Table 48 Medium for Data Exchange between Agency Functional Areas
N/A (A) 0 0%
The files are shared via a secure network (B) 5 31%
The files are shared via a non-secure network (C) 0 0%
The files are shared via floppy/CD media (D) 4 25%
The files are shared via DVD media (E) 5 31%
The files are shared via flash storage media (F) 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other: e-mail.
Survey Question: How many design surfaces are supplied?
Table 49 Design Surfaces Shared by Agency Design Functional Area
Final Top Surface and Final Bottom of Pavement Box Surface. (A) 2 3%
Final Top Surface Only. (B) 2 3%
Final Bottom of Pavement Surface Only. (C) 1 2%
Other 2 3%
No answer 21 32%
Other: Existing only, multiple surfaces: top-grading-subcuts-aggregates.
D-34

Survey Question: Does creation of DTM models add to the design unit's time allotted for production?
Table 50 Additional Time Required for DTM Model Creation by Agency Design Functions
No (A) 3 18%
Yes-the models have revealed minor errors in some data points which require time
3 18%
to correct. (B)
Yes- the models have revealed major errors in some data points which require
2 12%
time to correct. (C)
Yes-it takes more time to incorporate a design review into the process in order to
6 35%
issue engineered design data with the paper plans. (D)
I don't know. (E) 2 12%
Other 1 6%
Other: Still testing with several district design units.
Agency Planner’s and Surveyor’s Perspective
• The photogrammetric topographical collection method was the most prevalent at agencies,
followed by RTK GPS and conventional Total Station surveying.
• 76% of agency planning/survey units indicate that they create DTMs.
Survey Question: Which technology is most utilized in collection of topographic data?
Table 51 Agency Planning Function Topographic Data Collection Methods
Conventional Total Station surveying (A) 5 7%
Robotic Total Station surveying (B) 2 3%
GPS (C) 1 1%
RTK GPS (D) 7 9%
Photogrammetric (E) 8 10%
Other 0 0%
No answer 3 4%
Survey Question: Does your agency create 3D Digital Terrain Models (DTM) as a process in the
surveying functions?
Table 52 Are DTMs Created by Planning Surveying Units?
No (A) 1 1%
Yes-in some District offices (B) 4 5%
Yes-in all districts (C) 16 21%
Do not know (D) 0 0%
No answer 5 7%
• An equal number of procurement/construction units responding to the survey share EED with
contractors as those who do not.
• A clear majority of respondents in the agency Procurement/Construction Functional Areas
reported that field inspectors do not have access to DTMs.
Agency Procurement/Construction Functional Areas that do not share EED with contractors:
D-35

• A clear majority of procurement/construction units which do not share EED hold the opinion that
contractors should be responsible for creation of DTMs for AMG.
• An equal split of procurement/construction respondents felt that the responsibility for DTM
contract compliance rested with either the agency or the contractor.
• A clear majority of the respondents which do not share EED felt that agencies should share
DTMs with contractors and vice-versa.
• A clear majority of procurement/construction units which do not share EED hold the opinion that
contractors should share EED back to the agency.
• A clear majority of procurement/construction units which do not share EED felt that DTMs
should be shared with contractors in the pre-bid stage, while a significant portion of respondents
felt that the exchange should occur after a pre-construction conference. It appears from comments
received that many plan to provide at pre-bid.
Agency Procurement/Construction Functional Areas that do share EED with contractors:

• Of procurement/construction units which do share EED, an equal number of respondents stated
that responsibility for creation of the DTM was either the contractor’s or the agency’s
responsibility.
• A clear majority reported that EED exchange actually occurs after contract execution at the pre-
construction conference or stage.
• A clear majority of the respondents in this survey reported that the owner’s warranty of
constructible plans was for 2D ‘stamped’ drawings only.
• Approximately half of the respondents which share EED with contractors reported contractors
exchanging EED back to the agency.
• Alignment EED was the most reported dataset exchanged.
• An equal number of respondents which exchange EED with contractors reported that primary
responsibility for creation of the DTM was either with the agency or the contractor.
• Regarding revisions to the DTM after the initial share with the contractor, agencies were split on
how to align plan changes to the model.
Survey Question: Does your agency share Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors for
Automated Machine Grading?
Table 53 Does Your Agency Procurement/Construction Units Share EED?
Yes (Y) 25 21%
No (N) 27 22%
No answer 6 5%
Survey Question: Referring to the previous question. In your opinion, who is primarily responsible for
ensuring the DTM conforms to the contract documents?
Table 54 Primary Responsibility for DTM Contract Conformation According to Transportation
Agencies
Answer Not Sharing EED Sharing EED
Count Percentage Count Percentage
Contractor (A) 12 10% 14 12%
Consultant on Subcontract to the contractor (B) 0 0% 0 0%
Agency (C) 11 9% 4 3%
Consultant on subcontract to the agency (D) 2 2% 0 0%
D-36


Other 1 1% 4 3%
No answer 32 26% 36 30%
Non completed 63 52% 63 52%
Other (Not Sharing): Design Review function.
Other (Sharing): Provided to contractor with disclaimer at this point, See above, who created DTM,
whoever creates the model.
Survey Question: A Digital Terrain Model (DTM) is required to perform GPS Machine Guidance and
GPS sub grade Staking. Some of this data is generated by agencies in the design process. In your
opinion, who should be primarily responsible for creation of the DTM?
Table 55 DTM Creation Responsibility by According to Transportation Agencies
Contractor (A) 13 11% 9 7%
Consultant on Subcontract to the contractor (B) 1 1% 0 0%
Agency (C) 5 4% 7 6%
Consultant on subcontract to the agency (D) 5 4% 2 2%
Other 1 1% 6 5%
No answer 33 27% 34 28%
Other (Not Sharing): depends.
Other (Sharing): Agency or consultant-whichever creates the design file, We only provide data that we
have upon request. The contractor would have to create anything else they would need to use it, We also
create them but not as a standard practice at this time-we are heading toward that, We have used both the
Agency, Consultant and the Contractor, depending on the project, unknown, first three options above.
Survey Question: Digital Terrain Model (DTM) is required to perform GPS Machine Guidance and GPS
sub grade Staking. some of this data is generated by agencies in the design process. In your opinion,
should public works agencies share this data with contractors?
Table 56 Should Agencies Share EED with Contractors?
Yes (A) 21 17% 15 12%
No (B) 1 1% 3 3%
Not Sure (C) 2 2% 0 0%
Other 1 1% 7 6%
No answer 33 27% 33 27%
Other (Not Sharing): Yes, but with disclaimer, I think we should help as much as possible while allowing
the Contractor/Consultant be responsible for their model.
Other (Sharing): Only on Pilot jobs, If requested by the contractor, We have but with disclaimers, Our
design software at this time does not easily transform to DTM model, yes when requested, When
contractor requests, If available, if we have it we share.
D-37

Survey Questions targeted at Agencies Not Sharing EED:

Survey Question: If the contractor is allowed to utilize GPS Automated Machine Grading and/or
Subgrade Staking by utilization of its own Digital Terrain Model (DTM), should the contractor
share this data with public works agencies?
Table 57 Should Contractors Share EED with Transportation Agencies?
Yes (A) 25 21%
No (B) 0 0%
Not Sure (C) 1 1%
Other 0 0%
No answer 32 26%
Survey Question: If public works agencies elect to share Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with
contractors, WHEN, in your opinion, should the exchange occur?
Table 58 At What Contract Stage Should EED be Exchanged?
Other 1 1%
No answer 32 26%
Other: Contract, Preconstruction and Design Reviews
Survey Questions targeted to Agencies Sharing EED:

Survey Question: If the contractor is allowed to utilize GPS Automated Machine Grading and/or sub
grade staking by utilization of its own Digital Terrain Model (DTM), does the contractor share the
DTM back to your agency?
Table 59 Do Contractors Currently Exchange DTMs with Agencies?
Yes (A) 10 8%
No (B) 7 6%
Not Sure (C) 4 3%
Other 3 3%
No answer 34 28%
Other: Not required, We would require that yes and check with original ground control data, upon
request.
Survey Question: If your agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, how does
your agency provide the "Engineer's Stamp" of approval on digital models or datasets?
Table 60 How are Electronic Plans Officially/Professionally Approved?
Only the paper drawings are stamped and they govern. (A) 18 15%
We have no method of approving the digital data (B) 4 3%
Electronic signatures (C) 0 0%
D-38


Other 2 2%
No answer 34 28%
Other: data is provided as information only, as it is not part of the legal plan set, it is not stamped.
Survey Question: If your agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, WHEN does
the exchange occur?
Table 61 At What Contract Stage is EED Exchanged?
Other 7 6%
No answer 33 27%
Other: Right now it is after award of contract but we are switching to with Bidding Documents, At
request of the Contractor (during bid period or after award), When requested by the contractor, We are
moving to share with bidding documents, Currently after award, moving to make EED available at bid
time, Upon request, Only when requested by the Contractor awarded the Contract.
Survey Question: If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, what datasets are exchanged?
Table 62 EED Datasets Exchanged by Agencies
None (A) 0 0%
Slope stake notes (B) 7 10%
mass points and/or break lines (C) 6 9%
Alignment (D) 15 22%
Partial 3D design model (e.g without intersection detail) (E) 5 7%
Full 3D design model (F) 7 10%
3D Surfaces (G) 10 14%
Graphics (H) 6 9%
Storm and Sanitary (I) 5 7%
Electronic contract documents (J) 4 6%
Other 4 6%
Other: Any data that we have is made available to the contractor upon their request, As available from
Design, Provided electronically but not in DTM, See Agency Design and Survey Sections.
Survey Question: If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, how are the design changes
handled after the original model has been issued?
Table 63 How are DTM Revisions Aligned with Original Issued Models?
N/A (A) 5 4%
A new model with corrections is issued to the contractor (B) 5 4%
The contractor is notified and is responsible for making the changes in its version
6 5%
of the model (C)
Other 3 3%
D-39


No answer 39 32%
Other: negotiated with contractor depending on project specific agreements, depends on extent of changes
and time interval before it is needed in construction.
Survey Question: Do your field inspectors have access to 3D Terrain Models (DTMs) used for
construction?
Table 64 Agency Inspector Access to DTMs
Yes-on most projects (A) 5 4%
Yes-on selected projects (B) 9 7%
No (C) 30 25%
Other 6 5%
No answer 8 7%
Other: We are currently writing our specifications and this will be a requirement, 1 Pilot project, State
Survey Crews are available to our inspectors, upon request, Yes- when provided by contractor, Not
utilized by field inspectors to date.
QUALITY CONTROL AND ACCURACY
Addressing the topics of accuracy and its control spans multiple stakeholders and stages in the project
lifecycle. The project’s targeted surveys collected information and opinions from parties implementing
AMG in the various stages of the process and we have attempted to compare their experiences and
perceptions. Since the AMG process begins with the collection and use of existing project data, the
foundation of quality and accuracy begin there (establishment of survey control). This collected terrain
data is then transferred to additional stakeholders and manipulated in various software applications via
import and export and additional data is added in the creation of design models. The end-users of the
AMG process further manipulate this data for use in the heavy equipment which performs the grading
method. In all of these processes there are potential issues and pitfalls regarding quality and accuracy
before AMG implementation actually occurs. Quality control and accuracy issues in the implementation
stage involve human competencies, equipment competencies, and ‘best practice’ processes and
procedures. This section displays survey responses regarding quality control and accuracy in the
following areas:
• Data Collection
• Digital Terrain Modeling and EED
• AMG Processes and Procedures/End-User Competencies
• QA/QC Reported Practices
• Heavy Grading Equipment Issues
Topographical Data and Collection:

• Transportation planning and surveying units are increasingly mature in their data collection
processes and use of cutting-edge technology (RTK Post-Processed GPS Surveying).
• Most surveying units responding to the surveys have effective and validated RTK GPS
specifications which guide their processes of data collection.
• Planners and surveyors reported that Robotic Total Station surveying was slightly more accurate
than conventional total station surveying, both of which were deemed considerably more accurate
D-40

than GPS and Photogrammetric surveying as shown in table Table 65. The lower the number in
the table, the higher the rating of the respondents (on a scale of 1-4).
Table 65 Surveyor and Planner Rankings of Surveying Technology Accuracies

Ranking of Surveying Technology Accuracy Count Std Dev Avg Rank
Robotic Total Station surveying 32 0.50 1.52 1
Conventional Total Station surveying 32 0.79 1.52 2
GPS 48 0.93 2.29 3
Photogrammetric 75 0.79 3.57 4
• Ninety percent (90%) of respondents reported horizontal accuracy of 2 centimeters or less with
GPS surveying equipment.
• Forty-five percent (45%) of respondents reported vertical accuracy of 2 centimeters or less with
GPS surveying equipment.
•
Digital Terrain Modeling:
Table 66 Important DTM Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Software
Organizations
DTM Accuracy Factors Contractors Agency P/C SW/HW
Number of data points in DTM 70% 90% 80%
File types of shared data 52% 56% 67%
Number of data translations 56% 77% 63%
*This table represents the percentage of respondents choosing the factor as ‘Important’ or ‘Very
Important’.
Table 67 Factors contributing to EED Accuracy According to Software/Hardware Vendors

Factors Contributing to EED Accuracy SW_HW
Elevation point density 94%
Adhering to CAD Standard/Defined work-flow processes 81%
The sequence of when the models are created in the delivery process 88%
Engineer design competencies in design software use 100%
Important’.
AMG:
Table 68 Important AMG Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Software
Organizations
AMG Accuracy Factors Contractors Agency P/C SW/HW
File size of DTM 46% 47% 10%
Training/competencies of model builders 100% 90% 100%
Training/competencies of field personnel (rover-checkers) 85% 85% 70%
Training/Competencies of grading machine operators 81% 88% 70%
D-41

Training/competencies of owner-agency inspectors 52% 70% 60%

In-field QA/QC programs/procedures 89% 84% 80%
Important’.
QA/QC:
Contractors
• A large majority of contractors felt that AMG Quality control and tolerances should be controlled
via existing standard specifications versus special provisions.
• A majority of contractors which use AMG perform grade checking with a rover.
• A majority of contractors using AMG perform QA/QC checks daily versus hourly or by
sections/geometry of the project.
• A majority of contractors with AMG experience believe that the process exposes design errors
earlier than conventional processes, and therefore reduces rework.
• A majority of contractors with AMG experience believe that the process is more accurate than
conventional staking processes.
• A majority of contractors felt that providing a surveyor and rover to agencies was sufficient for
quality assurance, while they were equally divided over providing (1) rover and training, (2)
grade stakes and grade sheets, (3) cut sheets.
Heavy Equipment:
The following AMG accuracy factors were reported as ‘Very Important’ or ‘Important’ by the contractor,
agency, and heavy equipment vendor stakeholder groups by more than 50 percent of their respective
respondents:
• Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station, Laser)
• Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic control response)
• Lack of operator training
• End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software)
• Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer
• Lack of system understanding (technological) by inspectors/owners
• Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process
• Errors in setting up the control network
• Inaccuracies in final surfaces of the DTM
Tolerances specified by agencies/owners’ was deemed important by the contractors and equipment
vendors, but only a third of the agency respondents thought the same.
‘Hydraulic sensor selection’ was considered an important accuracy factor by more than half the
contractors, while less than a half of the agencies and less than a third of the vendors rated important.
Table 69 Important Equipment Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment
Organizations
Agency
Heavy Equipment Accuracy Factors Contractors H_Eqp
P/C
Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station,
77% 75% 81%
Laser)
Tolerances specified by agencies/owners 73% 34% 50%
Hydraulic sensor selection 58% 44% 23%
Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic 77% 62% 63%
D-42

Agency
Heavy Equipment Accuracy Factors Contractors H_Eqp
P/C
control response)
Lack of operator training 80% 75% 81%
End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software) 77% 65% 63%
Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer 85% 70% 93%
Lack of system understanding (technological) by
62% 70% 94%
inspectors/owners
Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process 88% 74% 88%
Errors in setting up the control network 96% 89% 94%
Inaccuracies in final surfaces of the DTM 96% 75% 80%
Inaccuracies in the original survey contained in the DTM 81% 74% 87%
Not cross-checking the final ground model of the DTM with
69% N/A N/A
owner.
*This table represents the percentage of respondents who chose ‘Important’ or ‘Very Important.’
Contractors:
• Seventy-two percent of the responding contractors felt that quality control should be specified
utilizing the agency’s exiting standard specifications.
• A clear majority of the responding contractors felt that conforming or aligning the DTM to the
contract documents was their responsibility vs. the owner/agency of consultants.
• A clear majority of the responding contractors felt that design changes to the DTM after creation
of the original model was their responsibility.
• Almost half of the contractors responding perform quality control by grade checking with a GPS
rover.
• A majority of the responding contractors check AMG quality daily vs. hourly or by project
geometry.
Survey Question: If your owner-agency allows GPS Automatic Machine Guidance technology on
projects, how are quality control (tolerances) specified?
Table 70 Contractor Reported AMG Specification Types
Via existing Standard Specifications. (A) 23 72%
Via Supplemental Special Provisions, Special Provisions, or Interim
6 19%
Specifications. (B)
Not Sure. (C) 1 3%
Not specified or no specifications exist. (D) 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Other: owner decides.
Survey Question: WHO is primarily responsible for ensuring the DTM conforms to the contract
documents?
Table 71 Contractor Reported DTM Responsibility for Contract Compliance
Contractor. (A) 27 23%
Consultant on subcontract to the contractor. (B) 0 0%
D-43


Agency (C) 0 0%
Consultant on subcontract to the agency. (D) 0 0%
Other 0 0%
No answer 44 37%
Survey Question: How are design changes handled after original Electronic Engineered Data (EED) has
been issued/exchanged?
Table 72 Contractor Reported EED Change Sequence
N/A (A) 2 2%
New EED incorporating the changes is issued to the contractor. (B) 6 5%
The contractor is notified and is responsible for making the changes in its
17 14%
version of the EED. (C)
Other 1 1%
No answer 45 38%
Other: EEd is changed by the agency submitted to contractor and contractor submits changes to sub-
contractor.
Survey Question: Who performs Quality Control (QC) when AMG is in process?
Table 73 Contractor Reported AMG QC Responsibility
Agency-Owner (A) 0 0%
Contractor Personnel (B) 24 20%
3rd party consultant/subcontractor (C) 5 4%
Other 0 0%
No answer 42 36%
Survey Question: How do your construction personnel perform Quality Control (QC) when AMG is in
process?
Table 74 Contractor Reported AMG QC Performance
N/A (A) 0 0%
Grade checking with a GPS rover. (B) 24 43%
Grade checking with a Total Station Collector. (C) 8 14%
Grade checking with laser technology. (D) 11 20%
Hire 3rd-party consultant for QC. (E) 12 21%
Other 1 2%
Other: Grade checking with stakes.
D-44

Survey Question: At what intervals do your construction personnel perform Quality Control (QC) and
Quality Assurance (QA) when AMG is in process? [Quality Control (QC)]
Table 75 AMG Quality Control Intervals by Contractors
By the Hour (1) 3 3%
Daily (2) 17 14%
Weekly (3) 1 1%
By Linear Feet/Meters (4) 1 1%
By Station (5) 4 3%
Per Intersection (6) 2 2%
No answer 43 36%
Survey Question: At what intervals do your construction personnel perform Quality Control (QC) and
Quality Assurance (QA) when AMG is in process? [Quality Assurance (QA)]
Table 76 AMG Quality Assurance Intervals by Contractors
By the Hour (1) 1 1%
Daily (2) 14 12%
Weekly (3) 3 3%
By Linear Feet/Meters (4) 1 1%
By Station (5) 4 3%
Per Intersection (6) 2 2%
No answer 46 38%
Survey Question: Please indicate your opinion regarding the Following:

[Automated Machine Guidance exposes errors in design early in the process, avoiding costly
rework.]
Table 77 Contractor AMG Opinion on Rework
Strongly Agree (1) 14 12%
Agree (2) 11 9%
Disagree (3) 1 1%
No Opinion (4) 1 1%
No answer 44 37%
Survey Question: Please indicate your opinion regarding the Following:

[Automated Machine Guidance is more accurate than conventional methods.]
Table 78 Contractor AMG Opinion on Accuracy vs Conventional Methods
Agree (2) 11 9%
Disagree (3) 2 2%
No Opinion (4) 2 2%
No answer 44 37%
D-45

Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of
Digital Terrain Models (DTM): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important)
[Number of original data points in DTM.]
Table 79 Contractor AMG Opinion on Data Points in DTM
1 (1) 14 19%
2 (2) 5 7%
3 (3) 8 11%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 44 37%
[File types of shared data.]
Table 80 Contractor AMG Opinion on DTM File Types
1 (1) 7 9%
2 (2) 7 9%
3 (3) 9 12%
4 (4) 2 3%
5 (5) 2 3%
No answer 44 37%
[Number of data translations between software applications (iterations of imports/exports).]
Table 81 Contractor AMG Opinion on DTM Translations
1 (1) 4 5%
2 (2) 11 15%
3 (3) 8 11%
4 (4) 4 55%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 44 37%
D-46


[DTM constructability review.]
Table 82 Contractor AMG Opinion on DTM Constructability Review
1 (1) 10 14%
2 (2) 10 14%
3 (3) 5 7%
4 (4) 1 1%
5 (5) 0 0. %
No answer 45 38%
Automated Machine Guidance (AMG): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important)
[File size of the DTM.]
Table 83 Contractor Opinion on DTM File Size
1 (1) 4 6%
2 (2) 8 11%
3 (3) 11 15%
4 (4) 1 1%
5 (5) 2 3%
No answer 45 38%
Table 84 Contractor Opinion on DTM Constructability Review
1 (1) 4 6%
2 (2) 14 20%
3 (3) 6 9%
D-47


4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 47 40%
[Training/competencies of model builders.]
Table 85 Contractor Opinion on DTM Training of Model Builders
1 (1) 18 24%
2 (2) 9 12%
3 (3) 0 0%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 44 37%
[Training/competencies of field personnel (rovers-checkers).]
Table 86 Contractor Opinion on DTM Training of Field Personnel
1 (1) 10 14%
2 (2) 13 18%
3 (3) 3 4%
4 (4) 1 1%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 44 37%
D-48

[Training/competencies of grading machine operators.]
Table 87 Contractor DTM Opinion on Training Machine Operators
1 (1) 11 15%
2 (2) 11 15%
3 (3) 4 5%
4 (4) 1 15%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 44 37%
[Training/competencies of owner-agency inspectors.]
Table 88 Contractor Opinion on DTM Training for Owners
1 (1) 5 7%
2 (2) 9 12%
3 (3) 7 10%
4 (4) 3 4%
5 (5) 3 4%
No answer 44 37%
[In-field QA/QC programs/procedures.]
Table 89 Contractor Opinion on DTM QA/QC Procedures
1 (1) 12 16%
2 (2) 12 16%
3 (3) 3 4%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 44 37%
D-49


Survey Question: How should owner-agencies request contractor assistance with Quality Assurance
(QA)?
Table 90 Contractor Opinion on Owner AMG QA/QC Procedures
Contractor provides agency a rover and training. (A) 8 19%
Contractor provides a surveyor and rover at the agencies discretion. (B) 13 31%
Contractor provides agency grade stakes and grade sheets. (C) 9 21%
Contractor provides agency with cut sheets. (D) 8 19%
Other 4 10%
Other: But at agencies and contractors convenience, owner to supply their own equipment with contractor
furnished card, contractor provides as-builts, n/a.
Survey Question: A- In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in
regards to AMG.
[Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station, Laser)]
Table 91 Contractor Opinion on AMG Positioning Methods Accuracy
Extremely Important (A) 6 5%
Important (B) 14 12%
Neutral (C) 2 2%
Somewhat Important (D) 3 2%
Not Important (E) 1 1%
No answer 45 38%
Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards
to AMG.
[Tolerances specified by agencies/owners]
Table 92 Contractor Opinion on AMG Tolerances Specified by Owners
Important (B) 11 9%
Neutral (C) 5 4%
No answer 45 38%
D-50

to AMG.
[Hydraulic sensor selection]
Table 93 Contractor Opinion on AMG Hydraulic Sensor Selection
Important (B) 11 9%
Neutral (C) 10 9%
No answer 45 38%
to AMG.
[Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic control response)]
Table 94 Contractor Opinion on AMG Machine Response Time
Important (B) 10 8%
Neutral (C) 5 5%
No answer 45 38%
to AMG.
[Lack of operator training]
Table 95 Contractor Opinion on AMG Operator Training
Important (B) 9 8%
Neutral (C) 2 2%
No answer 46 38%
to AMG.
[End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software)]
Table 96 Contractor Opinion on AMG End-user Error
Important (B) 8 7%
D-51


Neutral (C) 5 4%
No answer 45 38%
to AMG.
[Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer]
Table 97 Contractor Opinion on AMG Customer Technical Ignorance
Important (B) 9 8%
Neutral (C) 2 2%
No answer 45 38%
to AMG.
[Lack of system understanding (technological) by inspectors/owners]
Table 98 Contractor Opinion on AMG Owner Technical Ignorance
Important (B) 9 8%
Neutral (C) 7 6%
No answer 45 38%
to AMG.
[Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process]
Table 99 Contractor Opinion of AMG QA/QC Failure
Neutral (C) 3 3%
No answer 45 38%
D-52

to AMG.
[Errors in setting up the control network]
Table 100 Contractor Opinion on AMG Control Network Errors
Important (B) 7 6%
Neutral (C) 0 0%
No answer 45 38%
to AMG.
[Inaccuracies in final surfaces of the DTM]
Table 101 Contractor Opinion on DTM Final Surface Inaccuracy
Important (B) 9 8%
Neutral (C) 0 0%
No answer 45 37%
to AMG.
[Inaccuracies in the original survey contained in the DTM]
Table 102 Contractor Opinion on DTM Original Surface Inaccuracies
Important (B) 11 9%
Neutral (C) 1 1%
No answer 45 38%
Survey Question: Table 40M- In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment
in regards to AMG.
[Not cross-checking the final ground model of the DTM with owner.]
Table 103 Contractor Opinion on DTM Constructability Review and Heavy Equipment Accuracy
Neutral (C) 4 3%
D-53


No answer 45 38%
D-54

Survey Question: In your opinion, which areas should a guidance specification in public works agencies
address?
Table 104 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Specification Content
GPS Machine Guidance (A) 0 0%
Construction GPS Subgrade Staking (B) 0 0%
Both GPS Machine Guidance and Construction Subgrade Staking (C) 13 11%
Procedures for sharing EED (D) 7 6%
Not Sure (E) 5 4%
Other 1 1%
No answer 32 26%
Other: Procedures for sharing EED and procedures for location staking.
Survey Question: If public works agencies allow GPS Automated Machine Grading and Staking
technology on projects, how in your opinion should quality control (tolerances) be specified?
Table 105 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Specification Basis
Via existing Standard Specifications (A) 9 7%
Via additional specifications in Supplemental Special Provisions, Special
13 11%
Provisions, or Interim Specification (B)
Not Sure (C) 2 2%
Other 2 2%
No answer 32 26%
Survey Question: Which areas does your agency's AMG specification address?
Table 106 Agency Procurement Existing AMG Specification Content
Machine Guidance (A) 4 15%
Construction Subgrade Staking (B) 3 11%
Both Machine Guidance and Construction Subgrade Staking (C) 8 30%
Procedures for sharing EED (D) 1 4%
Not Sure (E) 3 11%
Other 8 30%
Survey Question: If your agency allows GPS Automated Machine Grading and Staking technology on
Table 107 Agency Procurement Existing AMG Specification Basis
Via existing Standard Specifications (A) 16 13%
Via additional specifications in Supplemental Special Provisions, Special 6 5%
Provisions, or Interim Specification (B)
Not Sure (C) 0 0%
D-55


Other 3 2%
No answer 33 27%
Survey Question: A digital Terrain Model (DTM) is required to perform Automated Machine Guidance
and GPS Subgrade Staking. Some of this data is generated by agencies in the design process. Who is
primarily responsible for ensuring the DTM conforms to the contract documents?
Table 108 Agency Procurement DTM Contract Conformance Responsibility
Contractor (A) 14 12%
Consultant on Subcontract to the contractor (B) 0 0%
Agency (C) 4 3%
Consultant on subcontract to the agency (D) 0 0%
Other 4 3%
No answer 36 30%
Survey Question: If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, are the contractors involved in the
QA/QC process for design?
Table 109 Agency Procurement DTM QA/QC Process
N/A (A) 4 3%
No- contractors must make any corrections to the DTM at their own risk. (B) 15 12%
Yes-if the contractor discovers errors, we have a process of incorporating the 1 1%
corrections back into the design DTM model. (C)
Other 3 3%
No answer 35 29%
Survey Question: Does a typical contract involving AMG require the contractor to provide agency
personnel with the means to electronically check grades?
Table 110 Agency Procurement QA/QC Contractor Involvement
Yes (A) 7 6%
No (B) 28 23%
Other 8 7%
No answer 14 12%
Survey Question: How do your construction inspectors perform construction QA/QC for grade/subgrade
when Automated Machine Grading is in process?
Table 111 Agency Procurement AMG QA/QC Process When Work Underway
N/A (A) 16 11%
Grade checking with GPS rover (B) 13 23%
D-56


Grade checking with Total Station collector (C) 22 39%
Grade checking with laser technology (D) 2 4%
Other 13 23%
Survey Question: If your construction inspectors utilize 3D Terrain Models (DTMs) in the field, do you
have any data or feedback to support the following statements?
Table 112 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Benefits
Errors and omissions are more easily discovered. (A) 5 9%
Pay item calculations are more efficient. (B) 4 7%
Pay item calculations are more accurate. (C) 3 5%
N/A (D) 42 76%
Other 1 2%
Digital Terrain Models (DTM) (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important)
[Number of original data points in DTM]
Table 113 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Data Points
1 (1) 21 21%
2 (2) 14 14%
3 (3) 2 2%
4 (4) 2 2%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 19 16%
[File types of shared data]
Table 114 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM File Types
1 (1) 4 4%
2 (2) 15 16%
3 (3) 7 7%
4 (4) 7 7%
5 (5) 1 1%
No answer 24 20%
D-57


[Number of data translations between software applications (iterations of imports/exports)]
Table 115 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Data Translations
1 (1) 6 6%
2 (2) 18 19%
3 (3) 5 5%
4 (4) 1 1%
5 (5) 1 1%
No answer 27 22%
[DTM constructability review]
Table 116 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Constructability Review
1 (1) 8 8%
2 (2) 15 16%
3 (3) 6 6%
4 (4) 1 1%
5 (5) 3 3%
No answer 25 21%
Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important)
[File size of the DTM]
Table 117 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM File Size
1 (1) 5 5%
2 (2) 11 11%
3 (3) 13 13%
4 (4) 4 4%
5 (5) 1 1%
D-58


No answer 24 20%
[DTM constructability review]
Table 118 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Constructability Review
1 (1) 8 8%
2 (2) 18 19%
3 (3) 5 5%
4 (4) 2 2%
5 (5) 1 1%
No answer 24 20%
Table 119 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Model Builders
1 (1) 25 24%
2 (2) 11 11%
3 (3) 2 2%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 2 2%
No answer 18 15%
D-59

[Training/competencies of field personnel (rover-checkers)]
Table 120 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Field Personnel
1 (1) 14 14%
2 (2) 19 18%
3 (3) 4 4%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 2 2%
No answer 19 16%
Arithmetic mean 1.9
[Training/Competencies of grading machine operators]
Table 121 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Machine Operators
1 (1) 20 19%
2 (2) 15 15%
3 (3) 3 3%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 2 2%
No answer 18 15%
[Training/competencies of owner-agency inspectors]
Table 122 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Owners
1 (1) 9 9%
2 (2) 19 19%
3 (3) 10 10%
4 (4) 2 2%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 18 15%
D-60


D-61

[In-field QA/QC programs/procedures]
Table 123 Agency Procurement Opinion on QA/QC Procedures
Answer Count Percentage Sum
1 (1) 15 15% 32%
2 (2) 17 17%
3 (3) 5 5% 5%
4 (4) 1 1%
5 (5) 0 0% 1%
Sum (Answers) 38 100% 100%
No answer 20 17%
[Original control network]
Table 124 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Control Network
1 (1) 25 25% 34%
2 (2) 9 9%
3 (3) 3 2% 2%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 1 1% 1%
Sum (Answers) 38 100% 100%
No answer 20 16%
Arithmetic mean 1.5
Survey Question: Do typical contracts at your agency require the contractor to provide personnel with
the means to electronically check grade elevations?
Table 125 Agency Procurement AMG QA/QC Contribution from Contractors
Yes (A) 5 4%
No (B) 35 29%
Don't Know (C) 4 3%
Other 6 5%
No answer 8 7%
D-62

to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important)
Table 126 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Positioning Methods
1 (1) 12 11%
2 (2) 21 20%
3 (3) 8 7%
4 (4) 2 2%
5 (5) 1 1%
No answer 14 11%
[Unrealistic tolerances specified by agencies/owners]
Table 127 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Tolerances
1 (1) 1 1%
2 (2) 13 12%
3 (3) 11 10%
4 (4) 11 10%
5 (5) 5 5%
No answer 17 14%
Table 128 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Hydraulic Sensor Selection
1 (1) 3 3%
2 (2) 11 12%
3 (3) 16 17%
4 (4) 2 2%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 26 21%
D-63


Table 129 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Machine Response Time
1 (1) 12 12%
2 (2) 12 12%
3 (3) 10 10%
4 (4) 5 5%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 19 15%
Table 130 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Operator Training
1 (1) 18 15%
2 (2) 15 12%
3 (3) 11 9%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 14 11%
Table 131 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-End-user Error
1 (1) 13 12%
2 (2) 15 14%
3 (3) 10 9%
4 (4) 2 2%
D-64


5 (5) 3 3%
No answer 15 12%
Table 132 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Technical Ignorance
1 (1) 12 11%
2 (2) 18 17%
3 (3) 7 7%
4 (4) 3 3%
5 (5) 3 3%
No answer 15 12%
Table 133 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Owner Ignorance
1 (1) 13 12%
2 (2) 18 17%
3 (3) 7 7%
4 (4) 6 6%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 14 11%
Standard deviation 1
D-65

Table 134 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-QA/QC Process
1 (1) 11 10%
2 (2) 21 20%
3 (3) 8 7%
4 (4) 3 3%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 15 12%
Table 135 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Control Network Errors
1 (1) 22 20%
2 (2) 17 16%
3 (3) 3 3%
4 (4) 2 2%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 14 11%
[Inaccuracies in the DTM]
Table 136 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-DTM
1 (1) 17 16%
2 (2) 16 15%
3 (3) 9 8%
4 (4) 2 2%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 14 11%
D-66


Table 137 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Original Survey
1 (1) 18 17%
2 (2) 14 13%
3 (3) 8 7%
4 (4) 3 3%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 15 12%

Survey Question: Does your design unit adhere to CAD drafting standards?
Table 138 Agency Design CAD Drafting Standard Utilized
No (A) 4 6%
Yes-Published Standards developed nationally. (B) 0 0%
Yes-Published Standards developed by the agency. (C) 12 18%
Yes-Published Standards developed internally. (D) 3 5%
I don't know. (E) 1 2%
No answer 8 12%
Survey Question: Based on the Standards identified, indicate the level of adoption of these Standards:
Table 139 Agency Design CAD Drafting Standard Implementation
Adopted the Standards and comply fully without any modifications. (A) 8 12%
Adopted the Standards and comply with slight modifications. (B) 6 9%
Adopted the Standards, and comply with major modifications. (C) 0 0%
No answer 14 22%
D-67

Survey Question: Please indicate the level of adoption, in your opinion, of the CAD Drafting Standards:
(1=Most Adopted, 5=Least Adopted)
Table 140 Agency Design CAD Drafting Standard Adoption
1 (1) 9 16%
2 (2) 2 3%
3 (3) 6 10%
4 (4) 1 2%
5 (5) 2 3%
No answer 8 12%
Survey Question: Is there a formal design QA/QC program to ensure that the CAD Standards are
followed? If so, please rate the level of formality to which they are followed by your agency
(1=strictly followed, 5=loosely followed)
Table 141 Agency Design CAD Standard QA/QC Compliance
No (A) 8 12%
1 (B) 4 6%
2 (C) 4 6%
3 (D) 1 2%
4 (E) 3 5%
5 (F) 0 0%
No answer 8 12%
Survey Question: Type the title of the CAD Drafting standards:

The thirteen written responses were:
• Roadway Design CADD Standards
• MDOT CAD Drafting Standards
• http://www.txdot.gov/business/disclaim.htm
• NCDOT CADD Standards
• NYSDOT Highway Design Manual NYSDOT CADD Standards a& Procedures Manual
• Federal Lands Highway Division CADD Standards
• CADD Standards Manual http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/design/caddmanual/caddmanual-
welcome.htm
• SHA CADD Standards.
• CADD Engineering Standards Manual,
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/ProdMgt/Production/CADD/Pages/CADDManual.aspx
• KDOT Graphic Standards
• Computer Aided Design and Drafting Standard Manual, 2000
• Delaware Department of Transportation CADD Standards Manual
D-68

• Mn/DOT CAD Standards

• DM3
Survey Question: In your opinion, rate the following factors for their contribution to DTM accuracy.
[Elevation point density.]
Table 142 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Elevation Points
Important (B) 8 12%
Neutral (C) 2 3%
No answer 12 19%
[Adhering to CAD Standard/Defined work-flow process.]
Table 143 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-CAD Standards
Important (B) 6 9%
Neutral (C) 2 3%
No answer 12 18%
[The sequence of when the models are created in the delivery process.]
Table 144 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Work Process Sequence
Important (B) 5 8%
Neutral (C) 6 9%
No answer 12 18%
[Engineer design competencies in design software use.]
Table 145 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Software Competencies

Important (B) 4 6%
Neutral © 1 2%
D-69


No answer 12 18%
Survey Question: Is post-processed of RTK GPS utilized when project control is established for
contractors?
Table 146 Agency Planning RTK GPS Utilization
Always when signal available (A) 5 7%
Occasionally (B) 4 5%
Primarily with conventional levels to establish vertical component (C) 8 10%
Never (D) 2 3%
No answer 7 9%
Survey Question: When horizontal project control is established WITHOUT GPS for contractors
(Centerline, Offsets, Grade Sheets), What amount of angular redundancy is used on each traverse
point?
Table 147 Agency Planning Angular Redundancy
2 sets (A) 9 12%
4 sets (B) 3 4%
8 sets (C) 0 0%
Other 3 4%
No answer 11 14%
Other: GPS Only, resection within defined tolerances, We use GPS for control.
Survey Question: If your agency utilizes GPS for surveying, which of the following control processes are
utilized?
Table 148 Agency Planning GPS Control Processes
Real-Time Kinematics (RTK) (A) 18 40%
Post Processed Kinematic (B) 8 18%
Post Processed Static (C) 17 38%
Other 2 4%
Other: Levels for vertical control, all three--depends on situation.
Survey Question: Does your agency have Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS Surveying Specifications?
Table 149 Agency Planning RTK GPS Specifications
Yes (Y) 10 13%
D-70


No (N) 7 9%
No answer 9 12%
Survey Question: Can you tell us about these specifications (RTK GPS Surveying), i.e. what are they,
were are they from, etc.?
• 2 occupations, minimum of three hours between occupations, with a variation of no more than 2
cm (horizontal) allowed. For greater than that, a third occupation is required. We wrote our own
with broad plagiarism of Caltrans specs.
• http://txdot-emanuals1.dot.state.tx.us/txdotmanuals/ess/ess.pdf
• We have developed RTK Specifications and they are integrated into our Caltrans Survey Manual.
They are based on tests and experience.
• Developed in 2006 by an internal group including myself, district land surveyors, district
construction personnel, and headquarters. Includes hard specifications that must be met for
collecting data with RTK, best practices, and requirements for submitting data to headquarters.
• Our Surveying Standards of Practice (March 2009) outline detailed procedures for set-up,
application, underlying control, positional accuracy verification among other things. These
standards are a product of collaboration between MDOT and survey consultants.
• Recommended guidelines are shown in NDDOT Survey Training manuals. Surveyors working on
our projects are required to follow these guidelines. They include shot times. RMS and PDOP
limits. Distance limits from the base. GPS configuration settings.
• NDDOT survey training manuals offer specifications and guidance on shot times, configuration
settings, and survey styles. NDDOT surveyors and consultants are required to use these
guidelines.
• The specifications were developed in house. The specifications used are primarily performance
based. Methods for surveying are not typically specified. If the standards are met, the method
need only be reported.
• Caltrans Surveys Manual
Survey Question: [Conventional Total Station Surveying] Rank your perception of accuracy between
the following technologies for the collection of topographic data: (1=most accurate, 4=least
accurate)
Table 150 Agency Planning Perception on Total Station Survey Accuracy

Calculation Result
Count 21
Sum 32
Average 1.52
Minimum 1
1st quartile (Q1) 1
3rd quartile (Q3) 2
Maximum 3
D-71

Survey Question: [Robotic Total Station surveying]- Rank you perception of accuracy between the
following technologies for the collection of topographic data: (1=most accurate, 4=least accurate)
[Robotic Total Station surveying]
Table 151 Agency Planning Perception on Robotic Total Station Surveying
Calculation Result
Count 21
Sum 32
Average 1.52
Minimum 1
1st quartile (Q1) 1
3rd quartile (Q3) 2
Maximum 2
Survey Question: [GPS]- Rank you perception of accuracy between the following technologies for the
collection of topographic data: (1=most accurate, 4=least accurate)
Table 152 Agency Planning Perception of GPS Surveying

Calculation Result
Count 21
Sum 48
Average 2.29
Minimum 1
1st quartile (Q1) 1
3rd quartile (Q3) 3
Maximum 4
Survey Question: [Photogrammetric]- Rank you perception of accuracy between the following
technologies for the collection of topographic data: (1=most accurate, 4=least accurate)
Table 153 Agency Planning Perception of Photogrammetric Surveying
Calculation Result
Count 21
Sum 75
Average 3.57
Minimum 1
1st quartile (Q1) 2
3rd quartile (Q3) 4
Maximum 4
D-72

Calculation Result
Survey Question: What level of horizontal accuracy does your GPS equipment typically obtain?
Table 154 Agency Planning GPS Horizontal Accuracy
2 cm or less (A) 18 24%
greater than 2 cm (B) 1 1%
do not have GPS survey equipment (C) 1 1%
Other 0 0%
No answer 6 8%
Survey Question: What level of vertical accuracy does your GPS equipment typically obtain?
Table 155 Agency Planning GPS Vertical Accuracy
2cm of less (A) 9 12%
Greater than 2cm (B) 6 8%
do not have GPS survey equipment (C) 1 1%
Other 4 5%
No answer 6 8%
Other: Typical vertical accuracy is greater than 2 cm-better results may obtained depending on process
used, 0 to 3cm, 2cm local, 3-4cm absolute, Arkansas has a poor Geoid. The typical repeated precision is
close to 2cm.
Survey Question: Does your agency have standardized procedures for the collection of GPS survey data?
Table 156 Agency Planning GPS Survey Procedures
Yes (A) 18 24%
No (B) 1 1%
Don't know (C) 0 0%
No answer 7 9%
Survey Question: Are there any major differences in surveying for projects which you know will be
utilizing AMG versus conventional staking and grading?
• A lot of time is saved by not having to side stake and grading them. Accuracy is increased by
having a 3D design model to verify elevation on a project utilizing GPS equipment instead of a
pop level.
• No.
• modifying control to include monumentation for surround the entire project
D-73

• Less cross section stakes

• No - we anticipate all projects in the future will use AMG
• Making sure a GPS network is available at the project site.
• No all projects are generally treated the same. The major difference is on the design end. Are the
electronic files available?
• In general, we do very little bluetopping for AMG project, instead we do grade checks. For
Conventional grading we do all staking (unless the surveying is contracted out, in which case the
contractor performs the staking). No other significant changes for AMG.
• Additional control monuments may be set in areas convenient to the AMG equipment for
calibration purposes.
• Not at this time.
• Not at this time.
• No
• No major differences on the Survey side, but maybe on the design side.
• Terrain models are created as opposed to cross sections. Volume is calculated by the prismoidal
method with AMG.
• No
• do not support AMG
• No. We collect the information the same.
• Assume you mean design/engineering surveying. With more data collection via 3D laser
scanning, engineers need to be more able to work with 3D models, including surface and
subsurface data.
Software and Hardware Vendor’s Perspective
Survey Question: In your opinion, rate the following factors for their contribution to Electronic
Engineered Data (EED) accuracy.
[Elevation point density]
Table 157 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Elevation Point Density
Important (B) 6 18%
Neutral (C) 0 0%
No answer 5 15%
[Adhering to CAD Standard/Defined work-flow processes]
Table 158 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-CAD Standards
Important (B) 6 18%
Neutral (C) 3 9%
No answer 5 15%
D-74


[The sequence of when the models are created in the delivery process]
Table 159 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Work Process Sequence
Important (B) 9 27%
Neutral (C) 2 6%
No answer 5 15%
[Engineer design competencies in design software use]
Table 160 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Designer Competencies
Important (B) 5 15%
Neutral (C) 0 0%
No answer 5 15%
Electronic Engineered Data (EED): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important)
[Number of original data points in DTM.]
Table 161 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-DTM Data Points

1 (1) 9 31%
2 (2) 3 10%
3 (3) 2 7%
4 (4) 1 3%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 5 15%
D-75

[File types of shared data.]
Table 162 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-File Types
1 (1) 4 14%
2 (2) 6 21%
3 (3) 4 14%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 1 3%
No answer 5 15%
Arithmetic mean 2.2
[Number of data translations between software applications (iterations of imports/exports).]
Table 163 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Data Translations
1 (1) 6 21%
2 (2) 5 17%
3 (3) 3 10%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 1 4%
No answer 5 15%
Arithmetic mean 2
Table 164 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-DTM Constructability Review
1 (1) 8 28%
2 (2) 2 7%
3 (3) 3 10%
4 (4) 2 7%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 5 15%
D-76


Survey Question: Regarding software applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the following
in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy. (1=Most Important, 5=Least Important)
[End-user Training]
Table 165 Software Vendor Opinion on DTNM Accuracy-User Training
1 (1) 9 32%
2 (2) 5 18%
3 (3) 0 0%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 6 18%
Survey Question: Regarding software applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the
following in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy. (1=Most Important, 5=Least
Important)
[Software Algorithms related to plane coordinate geometry.]
Table 166 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Algorithms
1 (1) 2 7%
2 (2) 8 28%
3 (3) 4 14%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 6 17%
Survey Question: Regarding software applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the
following in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy. (1=Most Important, 5=Least
Important)
[Interoperability/Data Exchange formats.]
Table 167 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Interoperability
1 (1) 5 18%
2 (2) 6 21%
3 (3) 3 11%
4 (4) 0 0%
D-77


5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 6 17%
Survey Question: Regarding software applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the following
in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy.(1=Most Important, 5=Least Important)
[The number of data exchanges performed (iterations of import/export).]
Table 168 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Translations
1 (1) 4 14%
2 (2) 6 21%
3 (3) 2 7%
4 (4) 2 7%
5 (5) 0 0%
Number of cases 20 100 %
No answer 6 17%
[File size of the DTM.]
Table 169 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-File Size
1 (1) 0 0%
2 (2) 1 4%
3 (3) 3 12%
4 (4) 4 17%
5 (5) 2 8%
No answer 10 29%
Arithmetic mean 3.7
D-78

Table 170 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-DTM Constructability Review
1 (1) 3 13%
2 (2) 1 4%
3 (3) 4 17%
4 (4) 1 4%
5 (5) 1 4%
No answer 10 29%
Arithmetic mean 2.6
Table 171 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Model Builders
1 (1) 7 29%
2 (2) 3 12%
3 (3) 0 0%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 10 29%
Arithmetic mean 1.3
[Training/competencies of field personnel (rovers-checkers).]
Table 172 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Field Personnel
1 (1) 2 8%
2 (2) 5 29%
3 (3) 2 8%
4 (4) 1 4%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 10 29%
D-79


Arithmetic mean 2.2
[Training/competencies of grading machine operators.]
Table 173 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Machine Operators
1 (1) 1 4%
2 (2) 6 25%
3 (3) 2 8%
4 (4) 1 4%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 10 29%
Arithmetic mean 2.3
[Training/competencies of owner-agency inspectors.]
Table 174 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Owners
1 (1) 2 8% 25%
2 (2) 4 17%
3 (3) 3 12% 12%
4 (4) 1 4%
5 (5) 0 0% 4%
Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100%
No answer 10 29%
Arithmetic mean 2.3
[In-field QA/QC programs/procedures.]
Table 175 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-QA/QC Procedures
1 (1) 4 17% 34%
2 (2) 4 17%
3 (3) 0 0% 0%
D-80


4 (4) 1 4%
5 (5) 1 4% 8%
Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100%
No answer 10 29%
Arithmetic mean 2.1
Survey Question: Regarding hardware applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the
following in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy.
[End-user Training]
Table 176 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-User Training
1 (1) 3 12% 24%
2 (2) 3 12%
3 (3) 2 8% 8%
4 (4) 1 4%
5 (5) 1 4% 8%
Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100%
No answer 10 29%
Arithmetic mean 2.4
[Inaccuracies In Machine response to GPS positioning]
Table 177 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Machine Response
1 (1) 3 13% 21%
2 (2) 2 8%
3 (3) 3 12% 12%
4 (4) 1 4%
5 (5) 1 4% 8%
Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100%
No answer 10 29%
Arithmetic mean 2.5
D-81

[Human Error]
Table 178 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Human Error
1 (1) 2 8% 41%
2 (2) 8 33%
3 (3) 0 0% 0%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0% 0%
Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100%
No answer 10 29%
Arithmetic mean 1.8
[Errors in control network set-up]
Table 179 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Control Network
1 (1) 4 17% 34%
2 (2) 4 17%
3 (3) 1 4% 4%
4 (4) 1 4%
5 (5) 0 0% 4%
Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100%
No answer 10 29%
Arithmetic mean 1.9
[Errors in preconstruction surveys]
Table 180 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Surveys
1 (1) 4 16% 41
2 (2) 6 25%
3 (3) 0 0% 0%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0% 0%
Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100
No answer 10 29%
D-82


Arithmetic mean 1.6
[Data file sizes]
Table 181 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-File Size
1 (1) 0 0% 0%
2 (2) 0 0%
3 (3) 3 12% 12. %
4 (4) 4 17%
5 (5) 3 12% 29.17%
Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100%
No answer 10 29 %
Arithmetic mean 4
[Project Size]
Table 182 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Project Size
1 (1) 0 0% 0%
2 (2) 0 0%
3 (3) 3 12% 12%
4 (4) 4 17%
5 (5) 3 12% 29%
Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100%
No answer 10 29%
Arithmetic mean 4
[Project Complexity]
Table 183 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Project Complexity
1 (1) 0 0% 8%
2 (2) 2 8%
3 (3) 4 17% 17%
4 (4) 3 12%
D-83


5 (5) 1 4% 16%
Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100%
No answer 10 29%
Arithmetic mean 3.3
Heavy Equipment Vendor Perspective

Survey Question: Should an AMG specification contain equipment requirements?
Table 184 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Specifications
Yes (Y) 8 27%
No (N) 5 17%
No answer 4 13%
Survey Question: Please explain why equipment requirements should not be included in the
specifications.
Table 185 Heavy Equipment Vendor Specification requirement Explanation
Answer 5 17%
No answer 25 83%
Non completed 0 0%
• I feel the specification should be based on the finished product, not the process.
• Contractors should be allowed to use whatever equipment suits their particular requirements as
long as it meets the quality specifications for the project.
• too many variables
• Specs should describe desired results and accuracy requirements. The exact type, size, model and
brand of equipment used should be left up to contractor.
• Would love to have only my product specified. Otherwise stifles innovation. Specify the result,
not the tool.
Table 186 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Positioning Methods
1 (1) 8 28% 45%
2 (2) 5 17%
3 (3) 2 7% 7%
4 (4) 1 3%
5 (5) 0 0% 3%
Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100%
No answer 1 3%
D-84


[Unrealistic tolerances specified by agencies/owners
Table 187 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Specified Tolerances
1 (1) 4 14% 28%
2 (2) 4 14%
3 (3) 5 17% 17%
4 (4) 2 7%
5 (5) 1 3% 10%
Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100%
No answer 1 3%
Arithmetic mean 2.5
Table 188 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Sensor Selection
1 (1) 1 4% 12%
2 (2) 2 8%
3 (3) 5 19% 19%
4 (4) 3 12%
5 (5) 2 8% 20%
Sum (Answers) 13 100% 100%
No answer 4 13%
Table 189 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Machine Response Time
1 (1) 6 21% 35%
2 (2) 4 14%
3 (3) 2 7% 7%
D-85


4 (4) 2 7%
5 (5) 2 7% 14%
Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100%
No answer 1 3%
Table 190 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Operator Training
1 (1) 7 24% 44%
2 (2) 6 20%
3 (3) 1 3% 3%
4 (4) 1 3%
5 (5) 1 3% 6%
Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100%
No answer 1 3%
Table 191 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Human Error
1 (1) 4 14% 35%
2 (2) 6 21%
3 (3) 4 14% 14%
4 (4) 2 7%
5 (5) 0 0% 7%
Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100%
No answer 1 3%
Standard deviation 1
D-86

Table 192 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Customer Ignorance
1 (1) 8 29% 50%
2 (2) 6 21%
3 (3) 1 3% 3%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0% 0. %
Sum (Answers) 15 100% 100%
No answer 2 7%
Survey Question: Table 9H- In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment
in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important)
Table 193 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Owner Ignorance
1 (1) 11 38% 52%
2 (2) 4 14%
3 (3) 0 0% 0%
4 (4) 1 3%
5 (5) 0 0% 3%
Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100%
No answer 1 3%
Table 194 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-QA/QC Process
1 (1) 9 31% 48%
2 (2) 5 17%
3 (3) 2 7% 7%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0% 0%
Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100%
No answer 1 3%
D-87


Table 195 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Control Network
1 (1) 12 41% 51%
2 (2) 3 10%
3 (3) 1 3% 3%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0% 0%
Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100%
No answer 1 3%
[Inaccuracies in the DTM]
Table 196 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-DTM
1 (1) 9 32% 43%
2 (2) 3 11%
3 (3) 3 11% 11%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0% 0%
Sum (Answers) 15 100% 100%
No answer 2 7%
Arithmetic mean 1.6
Table 197 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Original Survey
1 (1) 10 35.71% 46.43%
2 (2) 3 10.71%
3 (3) 2 7.14% 7.14%
4 (4) 0 0.00%
D-88


5 (5) 0 0.00% 0.00%
Sum (Answers) 15 100.00% 100.00%
Number of cases 17 100.00%
No answer 2 6.67%
Non completed 13 43.33%
[Sensor/Technology system limitations]
Table 198 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Sensors
1 (1) 3 10% 38%
2 (2) 8 28%
3 (3) 5 17% 17%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0% 0%
Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100%
No answer 1 3%
[System Sensor Calibration]
Table 199 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Sensor Calibration
1 (1) 6 21% 42%
2 (2) 6 21%
3 (3) 3 10% 10%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 1 3% 3%
Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100%
No answer 1 3%
Arithmetic mean 2
D-89

Survey Question: If you selected any of the variables to accuracy in the previous question, HOW do you
IDENTIFY problems/issues in these areas?
Table 200 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Problem Identification
Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station, Laser) (A) 7 12%
Unrealistic tolerances specified by agencies/owners (B) 5 8%
Hydraulic sensor selection (C) 3 5%
Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic control response) (D) 6 10%
Lack of operator training (E) 5 8%
End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software) (F) 5 8%
Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer (G) 5 8%
Lack of system understanding (technological) by inspectors/owners (H) 4 7%
Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process (I) 4 7%
Errors in setting up the control network (J) 4 7%
Inaccuracies in the DTM (K) 4 7%
Inaccuracies in the original survey contained in the DTM (L) 4 7%
Sensor/Technology system limitations (M) 3 5%
Other 1 1%
Other: User Range Error
Survey Question: If you selected any of the variables to accuracy, HOW do you MITIGATE
problems/issues in these areas?
Table 201 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Problem Mitigation
Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station, Laser) (A) 5 17%
Unrealistic tolerances specified by agencies/owners (B) 1 3%
Hydraulic sensor selection (C) 1 3%
Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic control response) (D) 2 7%
Lack of operator training (E) 3 10%
End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software) (F) 3 10%
Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer (G) 2 7%
Lack of system understanding (technological) by inspectors/owners (H) 3 10%
Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process (I) 2 7%
Errors in setting up the control network (J) 2 7%
Inaccuracies in the DTM (K) 1 3%
Inaccuracies in the original survey contained in the DTM (L) 2 7%
Sensor/Technology system limitations (M) 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other: Inertia Sensors
Survey Question: What is the deciding factor when specifying sensor selection?
Table 202 Heavy Equipment Vendor Sensor Selection
Answer 10 33%
No answer 20 67%
Non completed 0 0%
• Expected tolerance of the sensor and application of the technology.
D-90

• Specify the tolerance required and leave sensor selection to the contractor.
• For paving, that would be how accurate the sensors are to meet certian specification or criteria.
• Application and specifications.
• Blend of performance, cost, reliability.
• Job accuracy specifications, job conditions, location and associated job activities.
• The type of dirt work being performed.
• Cost and quality.
• Near term, cost is deciding factor. Long term, it will be the understanding of the sensor that
decides selection.
• Required job tolerances +/- 10mm or +/- 30mm.
Survey Question: Do your products provide guidance/instruction regarding calibration of the sensors?
Table 203 Heavy Equipment Vendor Sensor Product Documentation
Yes (A) 15 50%
No (B) 1 3%
Other 0 0%
No answer 1 3%
D-91

Survey Question: What should be in a specification for AMG related to machine equipment?
Table 204 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Specifications
Answer 8 27%
No answer 22 73%
Non completed 0 0%
• I think the specification should state that the technology being used be verified by the job
inspector to be suitable for the application. I also believe that if automation is desired that it
should be included in the specification. Guidelines could be established by the agency to make
recommendations of what would be considered acceptable. This way the contract knows up-front
what they need to have to complete the job.
• Equipment capabilities and tolerances best practices.
• End result tolerances.
• Possible certified operators and/or users.
• Unsure of the context of this question.
• Accuracy requirements, QC procedures & requirements, description of required machine
tolerances & operating specifications to assure it can meet job requirements....that technology will
work properly on a given unit.
• Unsure.
• NEE on displays should indicate to the 10th for GPS and 100th for laser.
Survey Question: How should owners-agencies request contractor assistance with Quality Assurance
(QA)?
Table 205 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG QA/QC
Contractor provides agency a rover and training (A) 1 11%
Contractor provides a surveyor and rover at the agencies discretion (B) 4 44%
Contractor provides agency grade stakes and grade sheets (C) 0 0%
Contractor provides agency with cut sheets (D) 1 11%
Other 3 33%
Other: owner provides surveyor and rover, Owner-Agencies should have equipment that they are familiar
with and that they know meets accuracy requirements for QC function, Agency needs to make an initial
investment in GPS equipment (Rovers) and be trained in proper use.
DATA FORMAT
The investigators attempted to determine the data formats involved with the exchange of Electronic
Engineered Data (EED) exchanged between the functional areas of the project lifecycle in iterations of
inputs and outputs (or exports and imports) between software applications. There currently is no primary
software application that performs all of the functions required to produce the information for each
stakeholder. Consequently the exchange of EED is accomplished by exporting the data produced in one
function’s software application and importing it into another function’s software application. The survey
questionnaires revealed that the most utilized output file formats were .dgn and .tin at the beginning of
this multi-function process, but that the end users of the EED for automated machine guidance were
utilizing .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn for input file types (to create .dtm or other proprietary file formats). Figure 3
displays a general IDEF0 map of the EED exchanged across AMG functions and the file formats utilized
in the exchanges as reported by the survey questionnaires. The percentages represent the number of
respondents which chose that file type as an input or output to their functional processes.
D-92

Figure 3 File Types of EED Exchanged Across AMG Functions
Interestingly, approximately half of the software and hardware vendors responded that their products were
capable of data exchange via LandXML and they ranked that methodology as the most important.
LandXML was reported as one of the most prevalent import/export file formats by the software and
hardware vendors along with .dwg, .dgn, and .dxf file formats. The vendors expressed that their software
import/export capabilities were equally driven by owner and contractor needs, requirements, and
demands.
Contractors Perspective
The following tables from the contractor survey represent the data utilized to construct DTMs for AMG.
Survey Question: Which file formats do you need from owners to work with your software applications
to utilize AMG?
Table 206 Contractor File Formats for AMG
.dgn (A) 12 12%
.tin (B) 7 7%
.ttm (C) 11 11%
.dwg (D) 17 17%
LandXML (E) 7 7%
TransXML (F) 0 0%
.dxf (G) 14 14%
ASCII text (H) 8 8%
.dgn Microstation v.7 (I) 6 6%
.dgn Microstation v.8 (J) 5 5%
.pro (K) 7 7%
Other 4 4%
Other: REVIT, Land XML is preferred, Not sure, .dc for Config
D-93

Survey Question: What Electronic Engineered Data (EED) do you need for AMG which you are NOT
receiving from owners?
Table 207 Contractor EED Needed from Owners
2D/3D Surface. (A) 15 42%
Line work. (B) 7 19%
Top of Pavement vs. Top of Subgrade. (C) 10 28%
Other 4 11%
Other: None, we are getting info needed, site cal, Original Ground Model
The following tables from the agency procurement/construction survey represent the data utilized to
construct DTMs for AMG.
Survey Question: If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, what file formats are exchanged?
Table 208 Agency Procurement File Formats for AMG
.dgn (A) 14 41%
.tin (B) 6 18%
.ttm (C) 1 3%
.dwg (D) 3 9%
.LandXML (E) 4 12%
.dxf (F) 0 0%
Other 6 8%
Other: Not Sure, Not exactly sure we use microstation and geopak, CAICe Projects, Whatever the
contractor needs-Since this is done after the contract award at the contractor’s request-we work out what
is needed, unknown, See Agency Design and Survey Sections.
Survey Question: If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, what medium is used for the
exchange?
Table 209 Agency Procurement DTM File Exchange Medium
N/A (A) 2 6%
The files are shared via a secure network (B) 5 15%
The files are shared via a non-secure network (C) 2 6%
The files are shared via floppy/CD media (D) 14 42%
The files are shared via DVD media (E) 2 6%
The files are shared vias flash storage media (F) 3 9%
Other 5 15%
Other: Whichever is convenient for both parties, FTP, Varies, Not sure, Negotiated after contract award to
what will work for both sides.
The following tables from the agency designers’ survey represent the data utilized to construct DTMs for
AMG.
D-94

Survey Question: Which file format can surveyors use to provide you with topographical data?
Table 210 Agency Designer File Formats Received for AMG
.dgn (A) 15 27%
.tin (B) 11 20%
.ttm (C) 1 2%
.dwg (D) 6 11%
.LandXML (E) 4 7%
.dxf (F) 4 7%
.dtm (G) 9 16%
Leica Format (native format of machine control software) (H) 1 2%
Topcon Format (native format of machine control software) (I) 1 2%
Trimble Format (native format of machine control software) (J) 1 2%
CAT format (native format of machine control software) (K) 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Other: .tds
Survey Question: Which file format does your application utilize to process collected field data capable
of exporting?
Table 211 Agency Designer Application File Formats
.dgn (A) 14 25%
.tin (B) 8 15%
.ttm (C) 2 4%
.dwg (D) 6 11%
.LandXML (E) 6 11%
.dxf (F) 6 11%
.dtm (G) 4 7%
Other 2 4%
Other: txt, Trimble (not machine control software)
Survey Question: Which file format does your application utilize to prepare CAD drawings capable of
exporting?
Table 212 Agency Designer CAD File Formats
.dgn (A) 18 60%
.tin (B) 5 17%
.ttm (C) 0 0%
.dwg (D) 2 7%
.LandXML (E) 0 0%
.dxf (F) 2 7%
.dtm (G) 3 10%
D-95


Other 0 0%
Survey Question: Which file format does your application utilize to design and prepare 3D models
capable of exporting?
Table 213 Agency Designer Application File Formats Exported
.dgn (A) 12 35%
.tin (B) 8 24%
.ttm (C) 0 0%
.dwg (D) 2 6%
.LandXML (E) 3 9%
.dxf (F) 3 9%
.dtm (G) 3 9%
Other 0 0%

Survey Question: To which interoperability standard(s) do your software applications currently comply
with? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important)
Table 214 Software Vendor Application Interoperability Standards
LandXML (A) 14 41%
TransXML (B) 0 0%
Neither (C) 0 0%
Other 0 0%
No answer 6 18%
Survey Question: What datasets can your software application(s) import?

Table 215 Software Vendor Application Dataset Import
None (A) 0 0%
Slope stake notes (B) 4 3%
Mass points and/or break lines derived from 2D plans (C) 15 12%
Alignment (D) 16 13%
Partial 3D design model (e.g., without intersection detail) (E) 14 11%
Full 3D design model (F) 15 12%
TIN Models (G) 16 13%
Graphics (H) 14 11%
Storm and Sanitary (I) 11 9%
D-96


Electronic contact documents (J) 6 5%
Finish Grade (K) 13 10%
Other 3 2%
Other: bit maps with world files, Modification Models, "on-the-fly" design points, Raw LIDAR data
points.
Survey Question: Which file format can your software application(s) import?
Table 216 Software Vendor Application File Format Import
.dgn (A) 13 15%
.tin (B) 14 16%
.ttm (C) 7 8%
.dwg (D) 16 18%
.LandXML (E) 15 17%
.TransXML (F) 1 1%
.dxf (G) 16 18%
Other 5 6%
Other: .nez .xyz. bmp.bpw.lla, Proprietary Leica formats, ascii, user defined, dem, .grd, shp
Survey Question: Which file formats can your software application(s) export?
Table 217 Software Vendor File Format Export
.dgn (A) 8 10%
.tin (B) 12 15%
.ttm (C) 8 10%
.dwg (D) 14 18%
.LandXML (E) 13 17%
.TransXML (F) 1 1%
.dxf (G) 16 21%
Other 6 8%
Other: DTX, TN3, .nez.lla.svy, Proprietary Leica formats, user defined, .grd, shp.
Survey Question: What factors in your opinion will drive the adoption of interoperability standards for
AMG? (1=Most Important, 5=Least Important)
[Demand for end-user/customers.]
Table 218 Software Vendor Opinion on Interoperability-Customer Demand
1 (1) 10 34% 48%
2 (2) 4 14%
3 (3) 1 3% 3%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0% 0%
Sum (Answers) 15 100% 100%
No answer 5 15%
D-97


[Demand from transportation agencies.]
Table 219 Software Vendor Opinion on Interoperability-Owner Demand
1 (1) 9 31%
2 (2) 3 10%
3 (3) 3 10%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 5 15%
[Requirements in specifications adopted by agencies.]
Table 220 Software Vendor Opinion on Interoperability-Agency Specifications
1 (1) 8 29%
2 (2) 4 14%
3 (3) 2 7%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 6 18%
[Elevation point density]
Table 221 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Point Density
Important (B) 6 18%
Neutral (C) 0 0%
D-98


No answer 5 14%
[Adhering to CAD Standard/Defined work-flow processes]
Table 222 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Work Process
Important (B) 6 18%
Neutral (C) 3 9%
No answer 5 14%
[The sequence of when the models are created in the delivery process]
Table 223 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Production Sequence
Important (B) 9 26%
Neutral (C) 2 6%
No answer 5 14%
LEGAL
The project investigators developed a separate, specific, survey questionnaire in order to gain information
regarding the legal issues in regards to AMG. Only 12 persons responded to the survey in total and only
one respondent was a lawyer who did not provide identification or contact information. The most
pertinent piece of information gained from the survey was in response to the question 'Are you aware of
any legal issues regarding 3D design or the sharing of Electronic Engineered Data (EED) in general?'
To which one respondent answered:

"An administrative ruling by the PE and PLS licensing board requires PE/PLS to build the 3D model.
This is being challenged. Essentially, if the design is complete, then building the model is a CAD
technician function that does not involve design decisions."
This small piece of information is pertinent and will be addressed in Chapter 4.
D-99

There were however, questions regarding legal issues associated with the filing of claims and the sharing
of EED included in the survey questionnaires for the contractors, agency design, and agency
procurement/construction functions.
In response to the question 'Has your agency been involved in any "claims for equitable adjustment" or
arbitration associated with shared electronic design and/or DTMs?', only 3 responses answered
affirmative out of 304 total respondents to the three questionnaires (or 2 of 57 answering yes or no to the
question). These responses are displayed in Table 224.
Table 224 Respondents Reporting Claims or Arbitration Related to AMG

Contractors Agency Designers Agency P/C
Answer Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage
Yes (Y) 2 1% 1 2% 0 0%
No (N) 21 18% 12 18% 21 17%
No answer 48 41% 15 23% 37 31%
Non completed 47 40% 37 57% 63 52%
Table 225 reveals that agencies feel more exposure to liability because of sharing EED than contractors
feel they should.
Table 225 Contractor and Agency Opinions of Liability Exposure with EED Exchange
Sharing EED with contractors exposes
Contractors Agency P/C
agencies to liability.
Strongly Agree 0 1
Agree 4 15
Disagree 20 17
No Opinion 3 2
No Answer 44 23
Non Completed 47 63
The table below reveals that a majority of both contractor and agency respondents which answered the
question strongly agree that the sharing of EED contributes to a culture of cooperation between the
stakeholders.
Table 226 Contractor and Agency Opinions of Sharing EED and Cooperation
Sharing EED with contributes to cooperation
Contractors Agency P/C
between owner-contractor.
Strongly Agree 16 5
Agree 9 31
Disagree 1 0
No Opinion 1 3
No Answer 44 19
Non Completed 47 63
D-100

Only one respondent from the contractor's survey held the opinion that claims or change orders would
increase with the sharing of EED, while 58% of those answering the question felt that sharing would
decrease the likelihood of litigation or change orders. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents to the
question in regards to the sharing of EED felt that it would have no effect on claims or change orders.
Answers to the question, 'In your opinion, the sharing of Engineered Electronic Data (EED):' is shown in
Table 227.
Table 227 Contractors Opinions Regarding Sharing of EED

Increases the likelihood of claims/change orders. (A) 1 1%
Decreases the likelihood of claims/change orders. (B) 17 14%
Has no effect on the likelihood of claims/change orders. (C) 11 9%
Other 0 0%
No answer 42 36%

Agencies that share EED with contractors reported liability waivers as the most common protection from
contractor-created models used in AMG derived from agency design files. Agency Procurement and
Construction personnel were asked if they shared EED with contractors. There was an even split between
‘yes’ answers (25) and ‘no’ answers (27). The survey questionnaire delivered different follow-up
questions based upon this yes/no question.
Respondents who answered ‘no’ (currently do not share EED) were asked the following question
with responses shown in Table 228.
Survey Question: If public works agencies elect to share Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with
contractors in order to efficiently deliver projects and project quality, how should the agency's
liability (for errors in the DTM) be limited?
Table 228 How Agencies Not Sharing EED Should Limit Liability
Not Sure (C) 4 3%
Other 3 3%
No answer 32 26%
Other:
• It would seem this would be the same liability associated with the rest of the project design.
• Most states have the "paper plans rule in case of a conflict" specification. For the first few years
of "implementing" this technology, this is OK. However, after a specified period of time, the
public works needs to produce electronic plans that take precedence over paper.
• Since a consultant should develop the data, their errors and omissions insurance should cover any
errors, similar to other data used in the construction of a project.
Respondents who answered ‘yes’ (currently sharing EED) were asked the following question with
answers in Table 229.
D-101

Survey Question: If your agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors in order to
efficiently deliver projects and project quality, how is the agency's liability (for errors in the EED)
limited?
Table 229 How Agencies Currently Sharing EED Limit Liability
Agency chooses not to limit its liability (C) 1 1%
Not Sure (D) 4 3%
Other 5 4%
No answer 36 30%
Other:
• We provide the electronic documents for their use. They must convert the data to a useable form
for their equipment and software and we are not responsible for the accuracy of the data.
• Pilot projects, we work closely with contractor and data to deal with issues and limit risk
exposure.
• Agency responsibility defined in standard specs.
• Liability Waiver provided when data requested. Data provided on request only.
• Liability waiver is executed upon request/delivery of the EED.

Agency personnel responding to the Designer’s survey were clearly more concerned with implied design
warranty issues and the manipulation of their design data for the creation of models for AMG. This
concern is expressed in responses to the following question in Table 230.
Survey Question: Is your design unit concerned about liability (for design errors) which may be incurred
with sharing design files with the contractor?
Table 230 Agency Designers Concern with Liability from Sharing EED
No (A) 1 2%
No-we require liability waivers to be signed by the contractor before use. (B) 5 8%
Yes (C) 10 15%
Other 1 1%
No answer 11 17%
Non completed 37 57 %
Other: disclaimer states that paper still rules.
TRAINING
Contractors reported that they receive AMG training mainly from equipment and software vendors as
well as from internal ‘champions’.
Agency survey responses regarding AMG training were negligible.
Agency survey responses regarding 3D CAD training were negligible.
The majority of the respondents to the training course survey were academic institutions.
The following tables are from the Contractor Survey:
D-102

Survey Question: How do your field personnel receive primary training for the required software?
Table 231 Contractor Field Personnel Software Training
N/A (D) 0 0%
Other 0 0%
Survey Question: How do your field personnel receive primary training for AMG related hardware
(handheld and tablet computers, GPS rovers, etc.)?
Table 232 Contractor Field Personnel Hardware Training
N/A (D) 0 0%
Other 1 2%
Other: Trade shows
Survey Question: How do your machine operators and maintainers receive primary training for Machine-
specific equipment related to AMG?
Table 233 Contractor Machine Operator Training
N/A (D) 1 2%
Other 0 0%
The following table is from the Agency Procurement/Construction Survey:
Survey Question: If your construction inspectors utilize 3D Terrain Models (DTMs) in the field, how do
they receive training for the required software and hardware?
Table 234 Agency Procurement Field Personnel AMG Training
The contractor trains the inspectors as part of contract/bid item (A) 5 4%
The hardware/software vendors train the inspectors as part of 3 3%
purchase agreement (B)
N/A (C) 34 28%
Other 7 6%
No answer 9 7%
Other: Support staff try to provide training, sometimes contractor-sometimes vendor, We are working on
a specification to have contractors provide training and we also provide some of our own in house
training, Both vendor supplied training as part of purchase agreement and State supplied support by
Construction personnel, Department provided training, in house training, Internal training staff.
D-103


The following table is from the Agency Design Survey:
Survey Question: What percentage of your design engineers have been trained for 3D design?
Table 235 Agency Designer 3D Training
0% (A) 5 8%
1-24% (B) 5 8%
25-49% (C) 3 5%
50-74% (D) 2 3%
75-100% (E) 1 2%
I don't know. (F) 2 3%
No answer 10 15%

The following table is from the Agency Planning Survey:
Survey Question: Which technology does your agency provide training for new/existing personnel?
Table 236 Agency Planning Position Method Training
Conventional Total Station surveying (A) 20 26%
Robotic Total Station surveying (B) 15 19%
RTK GPS (C) 19 25%
RTK Post-Processed GPS (D) 11 14%
Photogrammetric (E) 9 12%
Other 3 4%
Other: Digital Levels, Digital & 3-Wire Leveling, Laser scanning and CADD

The following table is from the Hardware/Software Vendor Survey:
Survey Question: Does your firm provide training for the software products previously listed?
Table 237 Software Vendor Product Training
N/A (A) 0 0%
Yes, exclusively. (B) 2 6%
Yes, with third parties. (C) 1 3%
Yes, we offer training and third parties also offer training. (D) 12 35%
Other 0 0%
No answer 5 15%

The following table is from the Heavy Equipment (H Eq) Survey:
D-104

Survey Question: Does your organization offer training in any of the following areas?
Table 238 Heavy Equipment Vendor Training Offerings
How to retrofit machinery for AMG (A) 7 23%
Machine operator training (B) 14 47%
GPS rover training (C) 7 23%
EED using including DTM and 3D Modeling (D) 6 20%
Other 2 7%
Training and Educational Organization Perspective

The following tables are from the Training Survey:
Survey Question: How many separate courses do you or your organization offer regarding AMG?
Table 239 Training/Education AMG Course Offering Count
One (A) 6 12%
More than one (B) 8 17%
No answer 34 71%
Non completed 0 0%
Survey Question: What is the PRIMARY delivery method of your AMG training?
Table 240 Training/Education AMG Course Delivery Method
PRIMARY delivery method of your AMG training? A B C D
Classroom-at your site 0 0 0 4
Classroom-at client site 0 0 0 0
Online-synchronous (instructor and group paced) 0 0 0 1
Online-asynchronous (self-paced) 0 0 0 0
Desktop Computer-multimedia tutorials 0 0 0 0
Paper based tutorials 0 0 0 0
Books, pamphlets and other literature 0 0 0 1
Surveying and positioning equipment manufacturer and dealer = A
Equipment manufacturer and dealer = B
Independent professional trainer = C
University or college = D
Survey Question: What is the title/name of your course?

• Automated Machine Guidance - Principles and Practice
• On the job Training. We also take advantage of Dealer’s training.
• Construction Surveying
• Introduction to AMG. This is a web based NHI course
• IDM 427 Construction Equipment Management I will spend one day out of the semester
on this topic with the assistance of a local contractor experienced in the technology.
• Fundamentals of Soils and Foundation Construction
D-105

Survey Question: Does your course earn attendees academic or continuing education credits?
Table 241 Training Education AMG CEU Course Credit
Yes (Y) 4 8%
No (N) 1 2%
No answer 43 90%
Non completed 0 0%
Survey Question: What type of educational credits does your course earn attendees/graduates?
Table 242 Training/Education Course Credit Types
College/University credits towards degree. (A) 3 75%
CEUs (B) 0 0%
PDUs (C) 1 25%
Other 0 0%
D-106

PERCEIVED RISKS
Contractors, agencies, and heavy equipment manufacturers/vendors were queried in their respective
surveys to rate factors pertaining to risks in AMG technologies and methodologies on a scale of 1-5
(1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk). The results from the three surveys are displayed in Table 243 with the
percentages representing responses of 1 and 2 (highest and next highest risk).
Notable Differences in stakeholder responses regarding importance/significance of the risk:

• Lack of cooperation by owner-agency inspectors: Over half of the contractors and almost all of
the equipment vendors considered this factor as highly important, while only a third of the agency
respondents thought so.
• Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internally): More than half of all three
stakeholder groups felt this factor important, with the contractors and equipment vendors voting
roughly the same (75%-80%).
• Lack of training required to implement (internally): All stakeholders were unanimous in voting
this factor as important (64%-74%).
• Dependence on 3rd-party consultants for DTM creation: less than half of the respondents
considered this factor highly important, with exception of the equipment vendors.
Respondents to the contractor survey provided additional risk factors and comments deemed important:
• Maintenance of AMG-related hardware on the equipment can be expensive over time.
• No matter how you say it the risks are greater without the use of AMG.
• Over-reliance on AMG capabilities.
• Complacency with regard to QA/QC.
• Incomplete site calibration.
• Safety to ground personnel.
• Risk of damage to expensive equipment.
• Faulty equipment.
• Reception to GPS.
• Employee Cooperation.
Table 243 AMG Risk Factors rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Vendors
AMG Risk Factors Contractors Agency P/C HEqp
Lack of cooperation by owner-agency inspectors. 57% 33% 80%
High initial investment in equipment-lack of Return-On-
54% 43% 44%
Investment data.
Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internally). 75% 58% 81%
Lack of training required to implement (internally). 64% 74% 69%
Dependence on 3rd-party consultants for DTM creation. 41% 42% 69%
Operators may be distracted by looking at monitors in the
11% N/A N/A
machine cockpits.
*This table represents the percentage of respondents choosing the factor with the two highest risk levels.
D-107

Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest
Risk, 5=Lowest Risk)
[Lack of cooperation by owner-agency inspectors.]
Table 244 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Owner Cooperation
1 (1) 6 8%
2 (2) 10 13%
3 (3) 8 11%
4 (4) 2 3%
5 (5) 2 3%
No answer 43 36%
[High initial investment in equipment-lack of Return-On-Investment data.]
Table 245 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Equipment Investment
1 (1) 6 8%
2 (2) 9 12%
3 (3) 7 9. %
4 (4) 1 1%
5 (5) 5 7%
No answer 43 36%
[Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internally).]
Table 246 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Internal Competent Personnel
1 (1) 6 8%
2 (2) 15 20%
3 (3) 5 7%
4 (4) 2 3%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 43 36%
D-108


[Lack of training required to implement (internally).]
Table 247 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Required Training
1 (1) 3 4%
2 (2) 15 20%
3 (3) 7 9%
4 (4) 3 4%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 43 36%
[Dependence on 3rd-party consultants for DTM creation.]
Table 248 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-DTM Consultants
1 (1) 2 3%
2 (2) 9 12%
3 (3) 6 8%
4 (4) 7 9%
5 (5) 3 4%
No answer 44 37%
[Operators may be distracted by looking at monitors in the machine cockpits.]
Table 249 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Operator Distraction
1 (1) 0 0%
2 (2) 3 4%
3 (3) 5 7%
D-109


4 (4) 11 15%
5 (5) 8 11%
No answer 44 37%
Survey Question: Are there other risks for the contractor utilizing AMG that you could share?
• None.
• Maintenance of AMG-related hardware on the equipment can be expensive over time.
• None.
• No matter how you say it the risk are greater without the use of AMG.
• Over-reliance on AMG capabilities. Complacency with regard to QA/QC- Incomplete
site calibration.
• Safety to ground personnel, risk of damage to expensive equipment.
• Faulty equipment-Reception to GPS-Employee Cooperation.
Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for agencies utilizing AMG? (1=Highest
[Lack of cooperation by owner-agency inspectors]
Table 250 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Owner Cooperation
1 (1) 4 4%
2 (2) 10 10%
3 (3) 13 12%
4 (4) 8 8%
5 (5) 7 7%
No answer 16 13%
[High initial investment in equipment-lack of return-on-investment data]
Table 251 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Equipment Investment
1 (1) 7 7%
2 (2) 12 11%
3 (3) 16 15%
4 (4) 7 6%
5 (5) 2 2%
D-110


No answer 14 11%
[Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internally)]
Table 252 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Competent Personnel
1 (1) 10 9%
2 (2) 16 15%
3 (3) 14 13%
4 (4) 4 4%
5 (5) 1 1%
No answer 13 11%
[Lack of training required to implement (internally)]
Table 253 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Required Training
1 (1) 10 9%
2 (2) 25 23%
3 (3) 9 8%
4 (4) 3 3%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 11 9%
[Dependence on 3rd party consultants for DTM creation]
Table 254 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-DTM Consultants
D-111


1 (1) 6 6%
2 (2) 12 11%
3 (3) 14 13%
4 (4) 8 8%
5 (5) 3 3%
No answer 15 12%

[Lack of cooperation by owner-agency inspectors.]
Table 255 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Owner Cooperation
1 (1) 7 25%
2 (2) 5 18%
3 (3) 2 7%
4 (4) 1 4%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 2 7%
Arithmetic mean 1.8
[High initial investment in equipment-lack of return-on-investment data.]
Table 256 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Equipment Investment
1 (1) 2 7%
2 (2) 5 17%
3 (3) 4 14%
4 (4) 3 10%
5 (5) 2 7%
No answer 1 3%
D-112

[Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internally).]
Table 257 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Competent Personnel
1 (1) 4 14%
2 (2) 9 31%
3 (3) 2 7%
4 (4) 1 3. %
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 1 3%
Arithmetic mean 2
[Lack of training required to implement (internally).]
Table 258 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Required Training
1 (1) 4 14%
2 (2) 7 24%
3 (3) 4 14%
4 (4) 1 3%
5 (5) 0 0. %
No answer 1 3%
[Dependence on 3rd party consultants for DTM creation]
Table 259 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-DTM Consultants
1 (1) 5 17%
2 (2) 6 21%
3 (3) 3 10%
4 (4) 1 3%
5 (5) 1 3%
No answer 1 3%
D-113


PERCEIVED BENEFITS
Contractors, agencies, and heavy equipment manufacturers/vendors were queried in their respective
surveys to rate factors pertaining to perceived benefits in AMG technologies and methodologies on a
scale of 1-5 (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk). The results from the three surveys are displayed in Table
260 with the shown percentages representing responses of 1 and 2 (highest and next highest risk).
All three AMG stakeholders agreed as to the value of the perceived benefits queried in the survey
questions with the exception of (1) constructability review and (2) jobsite safety.
Labor savings (direct cost on projects): More than half of all stakeholders deemed this benefit as high, but
virtually 100% contractors were voted this benefit high.
Environmental-Fuel savings: By mistake this question was not asked of the contractors. More than half
of the equipment vendors voted it a benefit while less than half of the agencies considered it high.
Project schedule compression: Contractors and vendors realize this benefit while just over half of the
agencies do.
Avoidance of re-work (re-grading): Virtually all contractors and vendors rated this benefit very high
while almost half of the agencies did not.
As-built documentation: The equipment vendors rated this benefit very high over both contractors and
agencies.
Ease of constructability review: The equipment vendors rated this benefit very high while contractors and
agencies apparently do realize the benefit.
Jobsite safety: This question was not asked of the contractors and neither agencies nor vendors rated it
highly.
Table 260 Perceived AMG Benefits Rates by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Vendors
Perceived AMG Benefits Contractors Agency P/C H_Eqp
Labor savings (direct cost on projects) 96% 76% 80%
Environmental-Fuel savings N/A 36% 60%
Project schedule compression 86% 57% 93%
Avoidance of re-work (re-grading) 93% 60% 87%
As-built documentation 58% 57% 80%
Ease of constructability review 44% 49% 73%
Jobsite safety 68% 44% 60%
safety of the traveling public N/A 31% 40%
*This table represents the percentage of respondents choosing the factor with the two highest benefit
levels.
D-114

Productivity gains and cost savings reported by contractors and equipment vendors are compared in Table
261 and Table 262. The equipment vendors appear more optimistic in regards to construction productivity
gains while the majority of contractors report gains between 11 and 25 percent. A majority of the
contractors report cost savings between 6 and 25 percent utilizing AMG.
Table 261 Comparison of Contractor and Equipment Vendor Productivity Gains with AMG
Productivity Increase Using AMG Contractor Vendors
0-5% 0 1
6-10% 0 0
11-15% 4 2
16-20% 6 0
20-25% 5 1
26-30% 3 1
31-35% 3 2
36-40% 2 6
Table 262 Comparison of Contractor and Equipment Vendor Cost Savings with AMG
Cost Savings Using AMG Contractor Vendors
0-5% 0 0
6-10% 6 1
11-15% 4 0
16-20% 5 0
20-25% 7 2
26-30% 1 2
31-35% 0 3
36-40% 0 0
>50% 1 1
In open-ended questioning, one contractor reported the following benefit:

‘Allows operators greater understanding of design of final product.’
In open-ended questioning, equipment vendors offered the following in regards to customer (contractor)
cost savings:
‘It really depends on the size of the job and how much AMG is utilized. The more AMG utilized,
the higher the percentage. Low-end 10%, high end could be upwards of 50%.’
‘Depending on design and type of projects ranges for 40 to 60 percent.’
‘Back office costs increase even as field costs decrease. Overall, 10%.’
Contractors Perspective
D-115

Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors utilizing AMG?
(1=Highest Benefit, 5=Lowest Benefit)
[Labor savings (direct cost on projects).]
Table 263 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Labor Savings
1 (1) 17 23%
2 (2) 10 13%
3 (3) 1 1%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 43 36%
[Project schedule compression.]
Table 264 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression
1 (1) 11 15%
2 (2) 13 17%
3 (3) 3 4%
4 (4) 1 1%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 43 36%
[Avoidance of re-work (re-grading).]
Table 265 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Re-Work
1 (1) 18 24%
2 (2) 8 11%
3 (3) 2 3%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 43 36%
D-116


[As-built documentation.]
Table 266 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-As-Built Documentation
1 (1) 6 8%
2 (2) 9 12%
3 (3) 7 10%
4 (4) 3 4%
5 (5) 1 1%
No answer 45 38%
[Ease of constructability review.]
Table 267 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Constructability Review
1 (1) 8 11%
2 (2) 4 5%
3 (3) 13 18%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 2 3%
No answer 44 37%
[Safety: Less personnel required on the grading surface with AMG.]
Table 268 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Safety
1 (1) 12 16%
2 (2) 7 9%
3 (3) 8 11%
4 (4) 1 1%
D-117


5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 43 36%
Survey Question: Are there other benefits for the contractor utilizing AMG that you could share?
• None.
• Allows operators greater understanding of design of final product.
• None.
• A deeper appreciation of how science and technology can streamline the entire construction
• Process-”Technological Enlightenment".
• Progressive image to customer, cost savings to customer, more competitive bids.
• The use of AMG modernizes the art of construction.
Survey Question: By what percentage does productivity increase by using AMG compared to not using
AMG?
Table 269 Contractor Productivity Increase with AMG
0-5% (A) 0 0%
6-10% (B) 0 0%
11-15% (C) 4 3%
16-20% (D) 6 5%
20-25% (E) 5 4%
26-30% (F) 3 3%
31-35% (G) 3 3%
36-40% (H) 2 2%
No answer 48 41%
Survey Question: What percentage of cost does your organization save by using AMG compared to not
using AMG?
Table 270 Contractor Cost Savings with AMG
0-5% (A) 0 0%
6-10% (B) 6 5%
11-15% (C) 4 3%
16-20% (D) 5 4%
20-25% (E) 7 6%
26-30% (F) 1 1%
31-35% (G) 0 0%
36-40% (H) 0 0%
Other 2 2%
D-118


No answer 46 39%
Other: too early for us to know, 51%.
Survey Question: If your agency allows Automated Machine Grading on construction projects, please
rate the following:
[Automated machine grading compresses the construction schedule]
Table 271 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression
Agree (2) 22 18%
Disagree (3) 3 2%
No Opinion (4) 11 10%
No answer 20 17%
rate the following:
[Automated machine grading exposes errors in design in sufficient time not to require rework]
Table 272 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Re-Work
Agree (2) 16 13%
Disagree (3) 6 5%
No answer 20 17%
rate the following:
[Automated machine grading is more accurate than conventional methods]
Table 273 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Accuracy
Agree (2) 15 12%
Disagree (3) 13 11%
No Opinion (4) 9 7%
No answer 19 16%
rate the following:
[Safety is a concern: Operators may be distracted by looking at monitors in the machine cockpits.]
Table 274 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Safety
D-119


Agree (2) 4 3%
Disagree (3) 23 19%
No answer 21 18%
rate the following:
[Safety on the job site is increased with less personnel required on the grade.]
Table 275 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Field Labor Reduction
Agree (2) 15 12%
Disagree (3) 6 5%
No answer 20 17%
Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for agencies utilizing AMG? (1=Highest
Benefit, 5=Least Benefit)
[Labor savings (direct cost on projects)]
Table 276 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Contractor Labor Cost Savings
1 (1) 16 15%
2 (2) 19 17%
3 (3) 8 7%
4 (4) 3 3%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 12 10%
[Environmental-Fuel savings]
Table 277 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Fuel Savings
1 (1) 4 4%
2 (2) 12 11%
3 (3) 18 17%
4 (4) 7 6%
5 (5) 3 3%
D-120


No answer 14 12%
[Project schedule compression]
Table 278 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression
1 (1) 6 6%
2 (2) 20 18%
3 (3) 15 14%
4 (4) 4 4%
5 (5) 1 1%
No answer 12 10%
[Avoidance of re-work (re-grading)]
Table 279 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Contractor Re-Work
1 (1) 13 12%
2 (2) 15 14%
3 (3) 15 14%
4 (4) 4 4%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 11 9%
[As-built documentation]
Table 280 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-As-Built Documentation
D-121


1 (1) 6 6%
2 (2) 19 18%
3 (3) 11 10%
4 (4) 5 5%
5 (5) 3 3%
No answer 14 11%
[Ease of constructability review]
Table 281 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Constructability Review
1 (1) 3 3%
2 (2) 19 18%
3 (3) 12 11%
4 (4) 8 7%
5 (5) 3 3%
No answer 13 11%
[Jobsite safety]
Table 282 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Jobsite Safety
1 (1) 5 5%
2 (2) 15 14%
3 (3) 17 16%
4 (4) 6 5%
5 (5) 2 2%
No answer 13 101 %
D-122

[Safety on the traveling public]
Table 283 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Public Safety
1 (1) 4 4%
2 (2) 10 9%
3 (3) 18 17%
4 (4) 4 4%
5 (5) 9 8%
No answer 13 11%

(1=Greatest Amount of Benefit, 5=Least Amount of Benefit)
[Labor savings (direct cost on projects)]
Table 284 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Labor Savings
1 (1) 7 25%
2 (2) 5 18%
3 (3) 3 11%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 2 7%
[Environmental-Fuel savings]
Table 285 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Fuel Savings
1 (1) 3 11%
2 (2) 6 21%
3 (3) 5 18%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 1 3%
No answer 2 7%
D-123


[Project schedule compression]
Table 286 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression
1 (1) 10 36%
2 (2) 4 14%
3 (3) 1 3%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 2 7%
[Avoidance of re-work (re-grading)]
Table 287 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Re-Work
1 (1) 11 39%
2 (2) 2 7%
3 (3) 2 7%
4 (4) 0 0%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 2 7%
Arithmetic mean 1.4
[As-built documentation]
Table 288 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-As-Built Documentation
1 (1) 9 32%
2 (2) 3 11%
3 (3) 2 7%
D-124


4 (4) 1 3%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 2 7%
[Ease of constructability review]
Table 289 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Constructability Review
1 (1) 6 21%
2 (2) 5 18%
3 (3) 3 11%
4 (4) 1 3%
5 (5) 0 0%
No answer 2 7%
[Jobsite safety]
Table 290 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Jobsite Safety
1 (1) 5 18%
2 (2) 4 14%
3 (3) 2 7%
4 (4) 2 7%
5 (5) 2 7%
No answer 2 7%
D-125

[safety of the traveling public]
Table 291 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Public Safety
1 (1) 1 4%
2 (2) 5 18%
3 (3) 3 11%
4 (4) 2 7%
5 (5) 4 14%
No answer 2 7%
Arithmetic mean 3.2
Survey Question: Do you know of any other benefits for contractors utilizing AMG?
• Marketability. Being recognized as using technology.

• Finding problems with design and correcting them before hand or earlier in the process,
proof of work performed as per design specs.
• Some components can record position data and accuracy detail for production analysis
and documentation.
Survey Question: Can you briefly explain the contractor benefit(s) of using AMG
• Increased machine life.

• Stake out costs.
Survey Question: By what percentage does productivity/speed of operations increase by using AMG
compared to not using AMG?
Table 292 Equipment Vendor Customer Productivity Increase with AMG
0-5% (A) 1 3%
6-10% (B) 0 0%
11-15% (C) 2 7%
16-20% (D) 0 0%
21-25% (E) 1 3%
26-30% (F) 1 3%
31-35% (G) 2 7%
36-40% (H) 6 21%
No answer 4 13%
D-126

Survey Question: What percentage of cost do you estimate your customers save by using AMG
compared to not using AMG?
Table 293 Equipment Vendor Customer Cost Savings with AMG
0-5% (A) 0 0%
6-10% (B) 1 3%
11-15% (C) 0 0%
16-20% (D) 0 0%
21-25% (E) 2 7%
26-30% (F) 2 7%
31-35% (G) 3 10%
36-40% (H) 0 0%
Other 3 10%
No answer 6 20%
Other:
It really depends on the size of the job and how much AMG is utilized. The more AMG utilized, the
higher the percentage. Low-end 10%, high end could be upwards of 50%.
Depending on design and type of projects ranges for 40 to 60 percent.
Back office costs increase even as field costs decrease. Overall, 10%.
D-127

The National Academies Press: Use of Automated Machine Guidance Within The Transportation Industry (2018)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Academies Press: Use of Automated Machine Guidance Within The Transportation Industry (2018)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25084 SHARE

Use of Automated Machine Guidance within the Transportation

538 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018. Use of

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Use of Automated Machine

John Hannon and Adam Dubree

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Project 10-77

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................................... xiii

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Project 10-77

Overall AMG Processes ................................................................................................................. 14

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Project 10-77

Agency Designer Perspective ........................................................................................... 54

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Project 10-77

Model Conversion to QA/QC Format............................................................................... 93

APPENDIX A: AMG Workshop Report

APPENDIX B: Annotated Bibliography

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Project 10-77

APPENDIX C: AMG Specifications in the United States

APPENDIX D: Detailed Survey Outcomes

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Project 10-77

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Project 10-77

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Project 10-77

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Project 10-77

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Project 10-77

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Project 10-77

AMG WORKFLOW PROCESSES

1. Surveying preparation workflow processes,

AMG INFORMATION REVIEW

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Project 10-77

throughout the report.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Project 10-77

AMG TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

BEST PRACTICES AND CHALLENGES FOR DESIGN MODEL DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT OF AMG ON EARTHWORK QUANTITIES

ACCURACY OF AMG PROCESS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Project 10-77

error detection and mitigation strategies.

AMG GUIDE SPECIFICATION

THE FUTURE OF AMG

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Project 10-77

AMG technologies are continuing to be adopted by contractors because it improves construction